Transpersonal Theory & the Astrological Mandala: An Evolutionary Model by Gerry Goddard
Return to Contents

- 9 -

Astrological Dialectics and the Evolution of Consciousness


The Conscious and the Unconscious: Either/Or: Both/And: Stage-Level II:
The Advent of Patriarchy: The ‘Mature-ego’ and the 6/12 Phase


The Conscious & The Unconscious

Although friendly to the non-teleological perspectives of postmodern chaos theory, the idea of spontaneous emergence and the notion of cosmic habits as replacing natural laws,1 our teleological narrative of the evolutionary path of consciousness affirms the ontological priority of deep dynamic/archetypal dialectical principles—not as a strictly Platonic formulation but in such a way as to allow for a fully participatory epistemology. The vertical axis marks an evolutionary development of consciousness from an original condition of unconscious embeddedness in the bio-psychic plenitude of living nature up to cultural-egoic complexities largely distinct from nature and then to further states and levels of cosmic consciousness involving the fully conscious marriage of Nature and Spirit. But in mapping a noospheric emergence beyond simple animal consciousness, we must be careful not to fall into the androcentric and simple 'progressive' paradigm where consciousness is always thought of as standing above unconsciousness with its corollary of the modern urban ego proudly standing above the primitive's nature-absorbed self. From Plato’s rider and horse to the advent of materialist modernism where Charles Taylor's 'punctual self' came to be interpreted as a mere epiphenomenon emerging out of, and standing atop of a deeper-lying essentially biological unconsciousness, the vertical stratification metaphor has assumed different forms.

From the ontological perspective of our model, it is misleading to say of 'consciousness' that it stands above 'unconsciousness'; I believe it more correct to speak of earlier and later stages of the conscious/unconscious relation. The vertical axis then denotes the evolutionary steps of an increasingly complexified consciousness-unconsciousness, a manifold we might wish to call Consciousness with a capital C. The four main stage-levels that we have outlined are to be understood in terms of a lateral yet multileveled dialectical relationship of consciousness and unconsciousness. As these two domains historically differentiated, an epistemic structure was eventually reached where consciousness became experienced as standing above and superior to unconsciousness—logos over eros, reason over feeling, will over instinct, ego over the unconscious, male over female, civilized over primitive, mind over nature.

In the Jung/Neumann model, the first stage of the emergence of consciousness is pictured as a developing heroic self, like an early amphibian emerging from the sea, pulling against the regressive force of a devouring unconscious matriarchal collective matrix that is 'there already'. From a rather different perspective, our model pictures a process driven at the outset by a creative dialectical tension between two principles or strands of development: the urge of the cosmos toward distinction and differentiation and the urge of the cosmos toward connection and integration, a dialectic giving rise to an increasingly complex differentiation of conscious and unconscious domains. There is a distinction to be made in terminology at the outset which has important implications for the deep topography of our model. Neumann, following Jung, speaks of the neophyte 'ego germ' emerging from out of the 'collective unconscious'. But the original unconscious fusion state should not properly be termed 'collective' since the words 'collective' and 'individual' only have meaning through a 'same level' relation to each other. Consciousness develops not 'out of' or 'against' something already. A dynamic and dialectical process, Consciousness develops through the natural bifurcation of consciousness and unconsciousness according to the most foundational archetypal Yin/Yang. It is the interplay of heroics and relationship, distinction and cohesion, competition and cooperation, internal and social factors (Darwin and Kropotkin; Piaget and Vygotsky2) which drives development and evolution.

So we need to be careful not to identify consciousness simply with the agentic ego, the agentic ego being the differentiating and separating principle which is only one, and predominantly the male side of the picture (see 'Gender Relations and the Agency/Communion Dialectic' in chapter 4). Through the stages of the Outward arc, the other, the natural world, the social world, the collective becomes the 'unconscious' and is formed along with the individualized 'consciousness.' Both the first and the third quadrants require the mutual tension between them in order for development or evolution to take place; that is, up to the axis N/M after which a different sort of dialectical interactivity occurs. The elegance of the logical topography of the astrological model—which most significantly has not been constructed solely from theory—is that the world/collective and integrative dimension (the third quadrant) stands across the great circle in simultaneous complementarity with individual selfhood while at the same time lying out 'in front’ of the developmental Outward arc trajectory.

Either/Or: Both/And

The dialectical tension between these yin and yang principles as they inform the Outward and Return arc must itself be understood in terms of these same principles operating at a meta level. Within any cycle of development, and as an overarching trajectory of psycho-bio-cosmic evolution, the formative relation of differentiation and integration undergoes shifts from a meta 'either/or' toward a meta 'both/and'. That is, differentiation at this first level means either/or. Integration at the first level means both/and. Then defining these principles at the meta-level we have: (a) Either Differentiation or Integration. and (b) Both Differentiation and Integration. Through what we are calling the first great stage of unfolding consciousness, these primal principles operating in a meta-level either/or mode impel an increased differentiation of individuals and societies. Then individual and society, like magnets resulting from a mother magnet cut in half, each comes to demonstrate the same North/South polarity, bifurcating according to the same polarities of differentiation and integration, division and connection, agency and communion.3 Ontologically deeper than the behavioural modes of an individual's assertions and connections, these directional principles come to inform and structure both the ego and the social network of relations within the larger dialectical interplay of consciousness and unconsciousness. So unlike the Outward arc where differentiation and integration stand in a meta-level Either/Or, on the Return arc we see that differentiation and integration are to be understood as a meta-level Both/And.

Evolving through the course of primal history, the 'collective unconscious' is really the larger domain of Being which falls outside of the circumference of individual consciousness, namely, the 'other', the 'world', even the depths of body-nature, everything that has been relegated to background. It is rediscoverable through engaging the bodily dimension as in the experiential transformative work of Grof, ecopsychological models and practices of reconnection with nature, the theory of Washburn, and Berman's (1989) interpretation of the ancient 'five-body' theory. Since the self/other and mind/nature distinction appears to occur more naturally for the male while the self/other and mind/nature connection appears more naturally for the female, and since the male gradually struggles to attain power over the female through the later phases of stage I, it is the first quadrant that increasingly becomes the foreground or the figure, the center of consciousness, while the third quadrant becomes experienced as the 'other', the female, mysterious and enchanted nature. This picture becomes decisively and monolithically established by axis N/M. The consciousness of the female person, the group mind, the spirit that permeates nature, the anima mundi—all such became historically objectified and 'other' yet no less critical in the development of consciousness.

Certainly, consciousness is not only the separative ego, it is also the consciousness of connectedness; not only the largely agentic male ego, but also the more communal female ego; not only the individual, but also the group; not only the organism, but also the natural environment of the organism, where neither the group is reducible to the individual nor the individual to the group. It is at the point of full dualistic differentiation at N/M (4/10), that self-reflective consciousness comes, dangerously yet awesomely, to 'stand outside of' original unconsciousness and embeddedness in nature. The primal and physical sense of first quadrant selfhood largely remains rooted in the soil of nature and the tribal collective. But by the end of the first quadrant, the 'self', born out of nature through the mental developments and common language-culture of 3/9, is largely differentiated from nature and the body and from the primal pull of the instinctual collective. The process of individual differentiation and development (the Q1 Day-force with its heroic assertions and exertions) continues through the second quadrant but gradually loses its momentum in the face of a pull toward unity—the rising Q2 Night force, a salient feature of which has been the women's equality movement later followed by the environmental deep-ecology and eco-feminist movements. A deep need to reconnect with that which has been lost increasingly exerts upon the psyche a pull toward personal relationship beyond kinship ties and original primal collective fusion. In the words of Erich Fromm:

When one has become an individual, one stands alone and faces the world in all its perilous and overpowering aspects. Impulses arise to give up one's individuality, to overcome the feeling of aloneness and powerlessness by completely submerging oneself in the world outside....Just as a child can never return to the mother's womb physically, so it can never reverse, psychically, the process of individuation. Attempts to do so necessarily assume the character of submission. (p.45)

Stage II is a complex mix of the continuing self-differentiating drive and a pull toward the opposite pole of connection and relationship. But the way is not to return to the original 'Eden state'—“innocence is not a perfection one ought to wish to recover; for as soon as one wishes for it, it is lost, and it is a new guilt to waste time on wishes” (Kierkegaard 1967, 34). Regression to the pre-personal state is no longer an option for the second quadrant individual except through fragmentation and pathological regression. "Each step in the direction of growing individuation" writes Erich Fromm "threatened people with new insecurities" (p52), but a productive response to the aloneness and anxiety of this phase is that of a "spontaneous relationship to man and nature, a relationship that connects the individual with the world without eliminating his individuality" (p.46)—an apt expression of the second quadrant's increasing interpenetration of the Day and Night forces.

Stage-Level II

As the individuating and separative momentum of the Day force lessens through the second quadrant, the subconsciously increased longing for the lost unity or Eden state is symbolically satisfied by culture, an abstract mental matrix that symbolizes, through religious beliefs, philosophical abstractions, and fundamental paradigms and ideals, the quest for transcendent unity grounded in the ninth principle. Culture offers an immortality, a symbolic freedom from death as Ernest Becker would say, the fear of which came to press more and more on consciousness by the end of stage I. Since separation from the Great Mother is painful, the new egoic individual (born at N/M) now seeks unity with the Great Father who suppresses (or at least, supersedes within a value hierarchy) the Great Mother. Thus, the grand patriarchal, mental-egoic cultural institutions of the fourth quadrant are established through an identification of the agentic individual—primarily the male—with the collective order at M (Capricornian 10th).

As said, the self-conscious mental-egoic individual is largely a cultural entity as distinct from an instinctual one. Through the first quadrant, the self-sense and its immediate body-centered world takes form within the third quadrant matrix of nature and the empathically resonant nature-attuned group mind of tribal society. From the 3/9 transition through the second quadrant, the self based on the self concept, takes form within the fourth quadrant matrix of large societies and complex mental-based culture (the domain of Capricorn and Aquarius). This newly forming self, combining body-ego, narrative, reason, and conceptual language grows and takes its particular form and shape in relation to the super-ego—to adopt a central term of Freud's tripartite structure. As Melanie Klein discovered in observing destructive, sadistic, and persecutory themes in young children, the super-ego, an integrated interiorization of collective rules, injunctions, beliefs and paradigms, is actually rooted in third quadrant primal injunctions and taboos, clearly referring to the Scorpio eighth principle. It is later that the super-ego is institutionalized at the mental-egoic level and established under the tenth principle. At point N, individualized, internalized, subjective consciousness (Cancerian interiority) reaches a point where from ‘within’, it is becoming conscious of that psychic dimension previously manifest as the numinous and universal Great Mother—the all-encompassing world-psyche and group mind (third quadrant, level I).

In Freudian terms the relative integration of id, ego and super ego; or, in more object relations terms, the consolidation of all self and object representations into a relatively integrated psyche marked by object constancy, can be framed as fourth principle. Here is the realization of the capacity for interiorization that constitutes the fundamental consolidation of the psyche and personal identity. The capacity to be alone with feelings, emotions, imagined terrors—to own them as 'mine'—is the new dimension of consciousness that awakens under the fourth principle. From a more Jungian perspective, the fourth principle marks the experience of facing 'within' that which was once the 'outer' terrifying Great Mother who formerly could only be contained by the group mind (7th & 8th)—facing and owning feelings which had previously been immediately acted out through and as the group mind. And of course, the same essential process occurs through individual development from the child/mother dyad to the establishment of object constancy (again, not to be confused with the earlier cognitive sense of object permanence which is 2nd principle).

Describing human evolutionary ascent in its largest terms—the process he calls 'hominization—are these words of Teilhard de Chardin: "The ego only persists by becoming ever more itself, in the measure in which it makes everything else becomes a person in and through personalization....Man only progresses by slowly elaborating from age to age the essence and the totality of a universe deposited within him". (pp.172, 180). Such a fourth principle (Cancerian) capacity for individual assimilation and structuring of previously collective psychic contents, becomes possible only following the development of third principle (Geminian) language and concept. Through the stage I divisional dialectic, the living essence or substance of third quadrant reality increasingly experienced as 'outside' and 'other'—group, the ‘other’ whether person, plant or animal—goes unconscious. Yet the psyche, despite this experiential differentiation, cannot escape the fact of its connection with the unconscious, with nature, with the ‘other’. The primally repressed unconscious now threatens to emerge into consciousness through the fourth principle—the subjective water sign Cancer—a threatened "irruption of the universal life-force into the individualized consciousness" against which "the individual must be protected; the onsurge of the unconscious must be canalized, made safer." (Rudhyar 1970, 54,57).

This is what individuality is; this is how it grows: the mental-cultural egoic structure is called upon to assimilate the now personalized Great Mother emerging from 'within', and it does so first within the matrix of the 'Fathers' (10th). This interiorized dialectic which now takes place between the conscious self as self-concept and the introjected 'Great Mother unconscious' is what the second quadrant 'self' is all about. It has been the establishment of the collective authority of the 'Fathers' over the Great Mother, the hegemony of reason and culture over biology and instinct, which has actually produced and compelled the subjective encounter with the inner Great Mother. Feelings and emotions are now relatively contained within the linguistically and conceptually formed structures of the self, rather than being one undifferentiated group or 'field' mind. The second quadrant individual receives the tacit support of the Q4 collective in constructing a self structure capable of holding and making sense of the non-rational forces of the inner psyche. It is this apparent bottomlessness of the individual 'self' that the existentialists, looking within from the standpoint of the later 6/12 phase, are encountering as the 'abyss' of nothingness, because the self when penetrated begins to dissolve back into the vastness of the 'collective' psychic depths from which it emerged. But most importantly, this is not to be confused with the mystic Void which embraces both conscious and unconscious, individual and collective within the Ground Emptiness. The Buddhist East/West philosopher Keiji Nishitani (1982) addresses this confusion between the sense of nihility arising in the wake of the Nietzschean challenge to the ontological infrastructure of the West and the Buddhist notion of Sunyata:

Sartre considers his nothingness to be the ground of the subject, and yet he presents it like a wall at the bottom of the ego or like a springboard underfoot of the ego. This turns his nothingness into a basic principle that shuts the ego up within itself. By virtue of this partition that nothingness sets up at the ground of the self, the ego becomes like a vast and desolate cave [our 4th!] ….As long as this nothingness is still set up as something called nothingness-at-the-bottom-of-the-self, it remains what Buddhism repudiates as ‘the emptiness perversely clung to.’….what is usually meant of nihility…cannot be a true negation of the self and all things because it exempts the subject to which it is attached through the negation…(p.33-34)

The introjection of the super-ego voice is the first stage of the mental-egoic maturation process. The tenth principle super-ego is not simply the law and order of collective conformity, but is the means for the establishment of second quadrant selfhood, the capacity for personal responsibility and integrated individualized consciousness. At the mature egoic level symbolized by the transition to the sixth principle, responsible action and a relatively integrated personality (actually, a post-fifth principle integrated system of sub-selves, the concern of the general approaches of humanistic psychology) no longer rest on an internalization of the parental voice and the particular familial/cultural injunctions experienced as a child. That earlier voice and its 'rational level injunctions' were formerly necessary for the child to create his or her original self/world concept. In the second quadrant, the self has become a complex structure, a relative integration of instinct, will, personalized feelings, emotions, and cognitive self/world concepts made up of positive and negative self concepts, an ideal self concept, and a super-ego. Here is the foundational mental-egoic structure which allows the beginning of a true moral development, the autonomous moral will of Kant.

The Advent of Patriarchy

Historically, stage-level II, rooted in 3/9 and prior to 6/12, has been one of patriarchal dominance, constituting the foundational epistemic structure of at least the past four millenia. How are we to understand the psycho-social dynamics of this foundational and most encompassing of paradigms? The fundamental gender bifurcation is rooted in the archetypal dynamics of the Outward arc. We now need to place that picture in relation to the psycho-dynamic mandalic structure that we are articulating. Essentially, under the patriarchy, ninth and tenth principle cultural values and paradigms have created second quadrant individuals who have, to a large degree, remained rooted in the first quadrant agentic structure. Generally, males have built their second quadrant egos through an ambivalent identification with the collective (second hemisphere) along with an adolescent rebellion against it. Historically, they have in effect delayed the possibility of a smooth movement through the second quadrant toward a truly mature individualized self-nature by over-identifying with the fathers—the fourth quadrant collective. We can say 'over-identifying' only in the archetypal sense to signify a polar shift and imbalance, which is not to say that things could have historically been significantly otherwise given the juxtaposition of peaceful and warlike tribes rooted in Gaian geography and biospheric evolution.

Males may have traditionally led the process of individualization, but now it seems that females are beginning to take the lead; to initiate the process of cultural and individual change which has been happening through the developments of 20th century feminism (with its roots firmly in the 19th century—Harriet Taylor, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony et al). As Wilber (1983) writes: " the male once rescued consciousness from the chthonic matriarchate, the female might today help rescue consciousness—and her brother—from the patriarchate. And as the innate but initial masculine mode seemed appropriate for the former, the innate but initial feminine mode seems appropriate for the latter." (p.260) Yet we are advised to be cautious here for as Betty Roszak (1995) has (and as others have) pointed out we need to beware of “investing ‘woman’ with some kind of magical life force.” “Until every man accepts and expresses what has been called ‘the feminine’ in his nature, and every woman is allowed to express what has been called ’the masculine’ in hers, we must be wary of setting ourselves apart as women in some new version of the noble savage, who bears all wisdom and will redress the wrongs and injustices of the world.” (p298).

Archetypally, stage-level II constitutes a movement toward a repolarized re-balancing of the Day and Night forces. Consciousness is no longer developing through a dialectical opposition, but is moving from a place of extreme difference back toward a new level of balance and interrelatedness. Nevertheless, this cultural rebalancing which is to be realized in a mental way at the higher levels of the 6/12 axis of level II, does not mend the original and primal ontological split occurring from the birth process to the advent of the mental-ego. Stage II has been built upon a foundational duality consolidated at N/M. To say it yet again, the principle of differentiation (first hemispheric Day force) resonates, on a primal level, more to the masculine, while the principle of integration (first hemispheric Night force) resonates more to the feminine. Thus, while by the later stages of the first quadrant there is an unambiguous masculine dominance, through the second quadrant the dominant masculine gradually comes, optimally, to allow the 'entry' of the feminine—most noticeably through the transition from 5th/11th to the 6th/12th phase.

We know historically that the development of the mental-ego occurred through a repression of the bodily-instinctual. Matriarchy was actually destroyed and replaced by a dominant and violently female-suppressive patriarchy. Patriarchy would become fully institutionalized in the Catholic West at Saturnian-Capricornian stage 10/4 as literalist and authoritarian early Christians achieved victory over the more Eastern-mystical-processive Gnostics (see chapter 13). The individual ego, and most pronouncedly the agentic male ego, repressed and marginalized the instinctual feeling-connective realm. The stage II movement—founded upon a deep lying imbalance—unfolds initially as a marriage of the two poles of the masculine; namely, Martian individual assertion and Saturnian rational-collective control. As stage II unfolds, it is through the processes of democratization and increased recognition of human, including women’s rights, particularly by phase 6/12, that we see the Day and Night forces moving more and more toward a balance. Yet as they do so, we draw closer and closer to the horizon at D/A where we come to face the results of the original fundamental split between nature and culture, body and mind that threatens to wipe out the human species. But this takes us ahead of our story.

The dominance of logos over eros corresponds to the historical dominance of the patriarchate over the matriarchate. The obvious dominance of reason over instinct, mind over body, logos over eros, conceals a deeper lying dialectic revealed by our model. It is not simply that logos suppresses eros, reason suppresses instinct, mind suppresses body; rather, it is logos or reason aligned with one of the poles of the instinctual/biological bi-polarity that produces a 'one-sided' repression rather than an increasing integration of mind and body—and the alignment is with the individual agentic first and second principles over the connective and individual communal seventh and eighth principles. It is the agentic/assertive pole (1:2) aligned with reason (3rd) that produces Will as a principle of power-over and self control which inevitably means the control of others—from the tenth principle. Here the division of logos and eros reflects the more primal division between the assertive and the relational (1st & 7th). Eros, the instinctual and the bodily, which has been suppressed and repressed is not, as usually assumed, the instincts and the body as a whole. Rather, the instinctual domain that has been repressed is the dimension of the relational, cooperative, and caring instincts which are seen to be undermining the 'higher' rational autonomy, and which have been relegated to the 'lesser' members of the cultural hierarchy, namely, women. Contrary to the traditional stereotypes, it is not the case that men are rational while women are instinctual; rather, men are as instinctual as women, but in a different way.

It is not solely the case that reason has aligned itself with raw instinctual assertion against the bodily feminine, although that has been a common and tolerated occurrence within the patriarchal world. In terms of collective 'law and order', the hierarchy of male dominance, the Martian instinctual-assertive, has been Saturnianly restrained and appropriately channeled, but not Plutonianly (8th principle) repressed or marginalized into unconsciousness as has the instinctual feminine. Grounded in biological assertion and coupled with the male's naturally inferior or undifferentiated relational function, the individualizing principle (first hemisphere) has taken control of the collectivizing function (second hemisphere) at the level of mind. In chapter 10 I describe the holonic logic of this process where the ever more complex and inclusive social holon is ruled by the most agentic, and therefore male, person or persons. During the period of the European Middle Ages, ninth principle mind remains dominant over third principle mind, yet as a power wielded by dominant males, who grounded in first quadrant agency, act in service to the second hemispheric Night force. By the modern (and still patriarchal) period, mind in its separating and differentiating third principle aspect will increasingly challenge mind in its synthesizing and integrative ninth principle aspect. (See historical account, chapter 14).

Constituting the patriarchal structure, the first hemispheric masculine is identified with the second hemispheric collective standing over against the feminine now situated at the subjective second quadrant pole. The heroic and primarily male individualizing project of the first quadrant historically unfolded through an identification with the fourth quadrant as the basis for further developments of fourth quadrant collectivity, thus expressing the Saturn (10th) principle of the male archetype as distinct from the heroic Martian (1st) principle. Males took full control of the second hemispheric Night force upon reaching point M, and it is here that the father has traditionally decisively taken over authority from the mother. Whether denoting the dominant societal order, institutional authority or the personal father, M marks the point of a maximum embrace of, and totalizing holarchically oppressive relation with, its 'constituent' elements.

It is interesting and may seem paradoxical that the sign Capricorn, the point where the Night force symbolizing the collectivity of the second hemisphere is at its apogee, often manifests as the individual's drive for power and control at the top of the stratified patriarchal hierarchy—the Capricornian individual ambition and drive for power 'within' or in the terms of the conventional order. This hierarchy established by the dominant individual and the elite is truly assertive/agentic/male. The Night force pyramidal organization came to replace the earlier and less power dominant smaller networks which were characterized by that tribal-familial or interpersonal familiarity where everyone knew one another and were held together by their shared mythos. (See below. Also, I explain the holonic logic of this feature in chapter 10.)

Sigmund Freud chose an ancient Greek myth as a thematic centre piece for his theory of early childhood development, namely the Oedipal story following the earlier ‘object relations’ child/mother dyad. But his theories were constrained by his assumption that the patriarchal structure was historically foundational and absolute. We now know that a particular socio-cultural constellation preceeded patriarchy and the ontogenetic stage captured by the Oedipus story—interestingly a situation also given its historical and artistic form as a tragic play, namely, Antigone, by the same Greek dramatist, Sophocles. This play in the fifth century BCE—a story older than the writing of the play itself—portrays the clash of the new and the old orders. Antigone, the heroically courageous female defender of natural law and blood family, in disobedience to the orders of King Creon, performs a ritual burial of her brother (and Creon’s own kinsman) who has been declared by Creon, legitimately enough in terms of state rules, to be a traitor to the state. For Creon, state law takes precedence over traditional ritual, family connections and ‘divine’ or natural law. He punishes Antigone for her disobedience by locking her in a cave symbolizing the act of primal repression of the feminine and the order of nature by the laws of man. Under pressures or guilt arising from such a defiant act—that is, acting against the force of the past— Creon then tries to free Antigone but is too late; she has perished by her own hand having been locked away in the ‘subterranean unconscious’. There is no turning back; a terrible price has been paid. We see here, embodying the male principle, the power of the State and its laws (enacted by a powerful individual male) over the old tribal and natural conventions of blood loyalties and family, over the divine law of nature as exemplified and defended by the female. While thoroughly devoted to the new rule of tenth principle collective order, Creon the king acts in true individualistic, separative male agentic fashion (first quadrant), precisely the male takeover of the Night force at the tenth principle phase, and precisely that combination of individualistic power and collective authority that we see in the sign Capricorn.

To repeat yet again, through stage-level I the dialectic of the Outward arc is moving toward radical distinction and differentiation; specifically between self and other, self and world, male and female, assertion and connection, individual power and political power. Consciousness cannot sustain such a bi-furcation beyond a certain point. So on the Outward arc, consciousness increasingly identifies with one pole while the other pole 'falls' into unconsciousness. The dominant tone of this archetypal dialectic is the assertive-individualizing principle—the first quadrant. Consciousness builds around the first quadrant structures increasingly over against the third quadrant structures. Ontogenetically and historically, the process occurs differently in males and females as revealed through the nature of the Oedipal separation from the mother. (See chapter 12). What we do know is that the male identifies more exclusively and totally with the first quadrant—the separation is more extreme, more distinct. Hence, for males an actual resistance to, and repression of, the early third quadrant takes place. This inevitably leads to a very real psycho-social repression of the feminine; hence, of female persons—and consequently, to the enantiodromic formation of patriarchy. 4

Archetypally, the third quadrant collective operates as an integrative and synthesizing principle producing ever larger and more complex wholes (the increasing social Night-force—the communional interactivities among social holons). The cohesive whole produced by the tenth principle continues to develop through the fourth quadrant, not simply as a process of further synthesis, but as a process of increasing differentiation and complexification (the rising Day-force through the fourth quadrant). The gradual rising of the Day force within the entrenched top-down power hierarchy of Capricorn informs, through the eleventh (Aquarian) principle, the political rise of socially agentic sub-collectivities from noblemen to merchants and eventually to workers. Changes in the previous tenth principle structures occur gradually. We see the advent of democracy (coupled with a capitalist and Protestant rejection of feudal Catholicism), the necessary legitimation of the ruling individual or individuals by a 'majority'—i.e. the collective participation of individuals with individual rights and freedoms within the previously rigid Capricornian power structures.

Thus, the fourth quadrant denotes the social matrix for the creation of ever more complex and autonomous second quadrant mental-egos within its institutions and paradigms. Rather than a gradual emergence of the 'feminine' within the second quadrant psyche, the emergent Night force has (at least up until recently where it is gradually changing in some democracies) been largely informed by the 'collectivized masculine'—the social injunctions of the tenth principle super-ego voice. Paradoxically, further individuation through the second quadrant has manifested as a combination of (masculine style) collectivization and first quadrant heroics. It is here that we see the historical failure, as yet, to develop a significant number of truly autonomous and responsibly connected egos within a cooperative and relatively enlightened collective. The condition of a more maturely autonomous ego within a more humane and enlightened collective would have been possible only if the masculine had not violently suppressed the collective feminine while at the same time allowing the feminine to 'enter' the process of second quadrant individualization. But in the tradition of human historical suffering and oppression, such division and oppression was likely inevitable. It is through further upward spirals of development within the 6th/12th band of stage II that we will see the deepest potentials of the interpenetration of the Day force and Night force as these forces come back toward a repolarized balance, an increasing harmonization of traditional 'maleness' and 'femaleness' taking place, beginning with various developments in our postmodern world—especially that of feminism.

As said, it is the sense of separation and aloneness at point N that propels the self to seek the unity that has been lost—to put back together that which has been, and had to have been, sundered apart. It is this separation that provides the very ground for social conditioning at the mental-egoic level. Parental injunctions (in our mental-egoic culture) take root precisely because of the compelling need for belonging, a need arising from the sense of separation resulting from pulling against original instinctual and unconscious connectedness, not only human to human but human to living nature. Original death fear has by the 4th/10th phase become culturally sublimated, the greatest fear now being severance from the human community (4th/10th and 5th/11th)—Erich Fromm’s urge to "escape from freedom".

Experiencing its separative distinction, the self is driven from within by the need for approval and belonging and by the concomitant fear of social ostracism. Conditioning at the fourth principle phase takes root in the soil of approval and disapproval, affirmation and negation, conditional love and acceptance. As one moves from the fourth to the social fifth principle, social anxiety comes to take the place of primal organic anxiety and death fear. A split between the inner person (4th, Cancer) and the persona (5th, Leo) occurs through a process of repression of those aspects of the self which are unacceptable to the self image. In general Freudian-Jungian language we can say that the repression occurs through identification with the super-ego, thereby creating the personal unconscious and the shadow, i.e. the shadow of the persona which is projected onto others. What could be the flowering of personality becomes the watered-down performance of persona. Persona can be defined as the visible shape of the fifth principle personality in relation to eleventh principle social contexts within the general institutional structures of the tenth and the psychological structures of the fourth principle. Here is the history of submission to authority and a loss of a creative and spontaneous power, a loss of authenticity. So authenticity, creative self actualization, self expression, become the psychological challenges of the 5th/11th (Leo/Aquarius) phase. At level II, the eleventh principle refers to the totality of interacting individualized personalities within various communities and socio-cultural groups—the sociological dynamics at the mental/cultural level layered over the concrete, organic, and instinctual interpersonal level of the third quadrant. It is within this conscious and rationally constructed social matrix that the individual effects his or her persona or expresses his or her personality. It is here that Winnicott's 'false self', a self more concerned with adapting to external demands than manifesting its deepest originality, really shows up—precisely Kierkegaard’s “absence of inwardness”.

The evolutionary telos of the ego through stage II is a pull toward unity as it continues to develop as an autonomous entity; that is, 'autonomous' in relation to the original fusion state yet at the same time realizing its interdependency. The developmental direction of the rational level ego is toward belonging and participation exemplifying the archetypal entry of the collective principle into the second quadrant psyche—the still unconscious but rising Night force. Where this opening to the Night force fails to take place, and the first quadrant assertive-separative principle (operating as reason over feeling, will over wish) predominates, the fifth principle operates as the ego's declaration of its heroic distinction within the eleventh principle field. This is clearly a failure (as yet) to develop beyond the primal first quadrant level of heroic selfhood. On the other hand, a predominant fifth principle or Leonine need to 'fit in' and conform to eleventh principle or Aquarian social expectations and peer group pressure indicates a regression to the original fusion state where the eleventh, unlike the original tribal 'unity' of the Scorpionic eighth, is characterized more by Neumann's (1973a) 'mass recollectivization' or Gebser's degenerative 'collective aggregation'.

The third quadrant collective operates exclusively as an integrative and synthesizing principle producing ever larger and more complex wholes. The cohesive whole thus produced by M continues to develop, not primarily through a process of further holarchic synthesis, but through a process of increasing complexification and differentiation into more developed and creatively expressive and productive sub-units. (Here we see the increase of social agency as the rising Day force through Q4—see chapter 10). Optimally (and eventually), the fourth quadrant collective provides an increasingly friendly social matrix for second quadrant persons whose fundamental purpose is a movement toward a more unified balance of agency and connection. As the separate egoic structure under the fourth principle begins to allow the collective unifying principle to enter its internal space, unconscious and collective contents are allowed into and integrated with the conscious structures. Erich Neumann (1973) captures an aspect of the higher possibilities of the fourth principle process within the level II mental-egoic band when he writes:

In the process of realizing and assimilating an unconscious content, the ego makes a 'descent', from the conscious standpoint, into the depths, in order to raise up the 'treasure'. In terms of psychic energy, the pleasure of the 'conquering hero' arises from the combination of conscious libido with that of the newly acquired content which it incorporates...The descent is from the conscious to the unconscious, and thus the reverse of the creative process which starts in the unconscious and works upwards...The joy of the creative process springs from the suffusion of consciousness with the libido of the hitherto unconsciously activated content. The pleasure and enrichment of libido resulting from the conscious realization and creativity are symptomatic of a synthesis in which the polarity of the two systems, conscious and unconscious, is temporarily suspended. (p. 343)

Correspondingly, the tenth principle must begin to incorporate the social individualizing principle into its institutional structures—into collective consciousness. The telos of the tenth is to create by institutional means (where 'institutional' is not to be equated simply with bureaucratic and organizational systems but with social practices and cultural paradigms) a 'higher' level of rational individuality. While the immediate tenth principle purpose of the super-ego injunctions is to establish and maintain the collective order, these injunctions ultimately challenge the person to develop to a 'higher' level of individual consciousness. Through the eleventh principle, there is an archetypal movement toward establishing a more heterarchical network which gives individuals, integrated within smaller collectivities, more freedom and participatory power.

The ‘Mature-ego’ and the 6/12 Phase

The highest levels of the sixth and twelfth principles potentially and optimally complete the rational-egoic evolutionary stage-level II which lays the foundation for possible trans-egoic developments. Third principle rational thought is capable first of acting or operating upon the concrete world, then, at a somewhat higher level, of operating on itself. \But true self awareness as we have come to think of it, is symbolized by the sixth principle and not simply by a higher level of third principle mind. When Wilber, for example, models the higher cognitive levels where thought operates on itself, he is including both our third and sixth principles. It is possible for the formal-operational cognitive and intellectual functions of the higher third principle to have differentiated even though the second quadrant ego might, in terms of the equally important emotional and moral maturity, still remain rather immature. Sixth principle mind is that which makes the mature-ego possible while establishing the basis of something perhaps akin to Wilber's vision logic and his integrated 'centaur'. According to Wilber, as consciousness begins to transcend the ego mind and integrate its various elements—all the lower levels: uroborus, body, persona, shadow, ego—we reach the integrated, self actualizing and autonomous level of the centaur. 6/12 egoic maturity means 'owning the shadow', no longer projecting and avoiding guilt (Peck), essentially a move from the single egoic 'I' viewpoint to the 'polytheistic' stance of the many sub-selves (Assagioli, Hillman). Owning the shadow means entering a certain comfort relation with the Night force which is gradually emerging through stage II, pressing on the boundaries of consciousness but not yet fully incorporated into consciousness. This level is described and accessed by the existential and humanistic therapies of Maslow, Rogers, May, Perls et al. The spontaneous will and intentionality of this integrated and freely self-choosing level moves into trans-verbal, trans-consensus, trans-social (but not yet transpersonal) modes of cognition, heightened sensation and intuition, and a higher symbolic and creatively imaginative process as distinct from primary process fantasy and magic.

Operating beyond the purely linguistically constituted intellectuality of the third principle, it is through its capacity for self modification (which is something more than the formal capacity of thought to operate on itself) that the sixth principle self is enabled to be in the world in a self-responsible way, a way that implies a true learning beyond social conditioning. Deeply into stage 6/12, following the problematic realization of the constructed nature of our world(s), we come to realize the nature of the 'participative mind': "The participative mind—which Heron (1996) also terms the post-conceptual mind—articulates reality within a paradigm, articulates the paradigm itself, and can in principle reach out to a wider context of that paradigm to reframe it." (p1. Heron & Reason. on-line paper). But this perspective does not and cannot challenge or reveal the underlying root of the ego itself; it still lacks the necessary purchase to actually transform the ego structure. Fundamentally, the sixth principle operates as a cybernetic feedback loop, a 'governor', a mechanism of consciousness which modifies what the ego is (4th) and what it does (5th), striving to integrate into a more functional stratified structure the first and second quadrants.

The 6/12 phase signifies the emergence of a set of values and perspectives which place the values and perspectives of 4/10 and 5/11 in a new light, subject to a new ethical and psychological evaluative process. In fact, it is in the transition from phase 5/11 to 6/12 where the idea and practice of psychotherapy is born. A deep self knowledge beyond ordinary interiority is fundamental to the very idea of the psychotherapeutic. Only in phase 6/12 where we have gotten sufficiently beyond the conventional structures of the tenth and even the eleventh principles, are we able to assist the individual to be born out of the cage of his or her conditioning, to realize his or her deeper and fuller possibilities while remaining connected to and ever more capable of authentic connection with others. Development up to phase 5/11 takes place as the individual negotiates the transitions within the given framework of collective values and paradigms. But it is the successful negotiation of the 5/11 phase, and especially the transition to the 6/12 phase, that calls for a new kind of self knowledge and self honesty beyond the given, which is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve without guidance from those who have already, more or less adequately, negotiated these post-conventional steps.

The sixth principle therapeutic encounter occurs where the therapist offers guidance from the perspective of 6/12 to the fifth principle individual who is having trouble negotiating the 5/11 phase (doing so either analytically as with Freud, or as a wise facilitator of the client's own 5/11 psychological 'birth' process). Such guidance stands perspectivally superior to the collective context which has impinged upon and informed the client bringing him or her to the present impasse. If phase 6/12 did not refer to a mature structure of consciousness, a connected autonomy superior to social convention yet thoroughly responsible, there would be no possibility of something called therapy, something that is more than the attempt to adjust the individual to the demands of society or to fix symptoms in the manner of today’s sophisticated 'magic bullet' drug therapies. This reaches beyond Freud who at the turn of the twentieth century, in the face of a pessimistic view as to the incontrovertible clash of civilization and the id, carried a deep 5/11 modernist faith in reason and an objectivist approach to problems, allowing at best a more comfortable and stoically 'adequate' adjustment to life and society's conditions.

The difficulties which the client faces in becoming adequate to the developmental challenges of the 5/11 phase where s/he is presently situated, may be traceable to any of the earlier stages all the way back to phase 1/7. Dealing generally with particularly deep rooted levels of disturbance, psychoanalysis—whether of the Freudian school with its emphasis on the original instinctual drives of the id meeting the willing or unwilling object, or whether focussing on the early social dynamics as in the 'object relations' of the child/mother dyad—looks back all the way to stage-structure I, especially phases 1/7 and 2/8. Less concerned with the infantile unconscious, humanistic and counseling approaches including such methods as transactional analysis, tend to focus on the phases 3/9, 4/10 and especially the immediate and pressing challenge of the client, namely, phase 5/11. Existentialist approaches, either depth psychoanalytic or humanistic (Binswanger, Brown, Becker, Laing, May), tend to focus on one or the other of these deep stages. But the existential approach seeks to identify and articulate the universal conditions of human existence underlying the concrete biological and social circumstances, understanding the human being in terms of his or her striving to forge adequate meanings and access sufficient courage to cope with the experienced contraries of life and the contradictions of society. Here is the point where the human sciences can no longer function strictly within the logico-scientific mode but are required to embrace the narrative form as fundamentally constitutive of the human psyche, engaging that interface between the basic 'facts' and meanings, i.e. the interpretations of the facts. Donald E. Polkinghorne has been an important voice in defining this essentially interpretative and narrative methodology for the human sciences. With reference to the psychotherapeutic context specifically: “According to the narrative understanding of the psychoanalytic process, therapy does not consist in the healing effect of the recovery of the repressed but in the reconstruction of a person’s authentic psychoanalytic story.”

The patient comes to the analyst with a story to tell, a story that is not so much false—since it does in some manner signify the truth—as incomplete and untherapeutic. Psychoanalysis is not merely the listening to an analysand’s story, however. It is a dual hue through which the story is transformed. The plot brought by the analysand lacks the dynamic necessary to create a sequence, or design, that integrates and explains. The fuller plot constructed by the analytic work leads to a more dynamic, and thus more useful, plot which serves as a more powerful shaping and connective force. The new story must above all be hermeneutically forceful and must carry the power of conviction for both its tellers and its listeners. The point of the analytic work is not to lead the analysand to create a literal description of or to recover the past. Instead, the past is to be reconstructed in the light of the client’s present awareness. (p179)

In our terms, this is a reconstruction of narrative from the point of view of the sixth principle.

As we pass beyond the conventional level, we move from Sittlichkeit to Moralitat5 —guided by a moral compass magnetized by an emergent higher conscience, we move beyond morality as solely communal duties and social practices as necessary as these are and continue to be. Up to this point the questions of good and evil, the very process of moral evalution, have expressed the point of view of the individual in his or her community as constituted by its moral order. What is bad' or 'evil' has been that which is different from, or lies outside of and threatening to (or even what merely seems to be threatening to) the particular social/moral order. Such an ordering structure is constituted by what is now seen as the mechanism of identification and projection—the identification with the persona and the projection of the accompanying shadow. The history of this process has been one of dominance, subjugation, torture, murder, blame, exclusion, persecution, scapegoating, war and on and on. So it is from this perspective—the evolutionary imperative to awaken to the psychological and the self-responsible—that the psychiatrist Scott M. Peck, after dismissing the biologically deficient psychopaths as relevant candidates, can correctly identify 'evil' not in the numerous places and persons where it has been traditionally placed, but with the projective process itself, particularly in its most extreme forms.

[T]hose who have 'crossed over the line' are characterized by their absolute refusal to tolerate the sense of their own sinfulness....A predominant characteristic...of the behavoir of those I call evil is scapegoating....Scapegoating works through a mechanism psychiatrists call projection. Since the evil, deep down, feel themselves to be faultless, it is inevitable that when they are in conflict with the world they will invariably perceive the conflict as the world's fault. Since they must deny their own badness, they must perceive others as bad....Utterly dedicated to preserving their self-image of pefection, they are unceasingly engaged in the effort to maintain the appearance of moral purity....While they seem to lack any motivation to be good, they intensely desire to appear good. Their 'goodness' is on a level of pretense. It is, in effect, a lie. This is why they are the 'people of the lie'. Actually, the lie is designed not so much to deceive others as to deceive themselves. They cannot or will not tolerate the pain of self-reproach. (pp.178, 179)

Such a projective process is a failure, an absolute unwillingness to face the pain of our own guilt and to accept responsibility (6th); it is to be entirely unwilling to allow the emergence of the shadow within—the rising Night force through the second quadrant which, by the end of the heroic 5/11 and the beginning of 6/12 is making its pressure felt and demanding a new response, a new self-honesty and psychological clarity. Peck adds that "since they will do anything to avoid the particular pain that comes with self-examination, under ordinary circumstances the evil are the last people who would ever come to psychotherapy". (p.180) Such an idea harks back to Kierkegaard (1967) who speaking of the ‘shut-up-ness‘ characteristic of humans (which we now call repression)—'when the individual at the time of accomplishing the terrible act was not master of himself'—observes that “what decides whether the phenomenon is demoniacal is the attitude of the individual toward revelation, whether he is willing to permeate that fact with freedom, assume the responsibility of it with freedom.” (p.114)

Thoroughly grounded in a 6/12 postmodern perspective, the psychoanalyst Stephen Mitchell approaches the client as if he or she were primarily struggling to negotiate the challenges of stage II, particularly the 5th/11th phase. Rather than Freud's "drive regulating animals" he sees humans as primarily "meaning-generating animals" who rather than suffering from "conflictual infantile passions", are suffering from "stunted personal development". In accord with the archetypal potential of the 5/11 challenge (which cannot be facilitated by the analytical self awareness of stage I biography), what the patient is seen to need "is not clarification or insight so much as a sustained experience of being seen, personally engaged, and, basically, valued and cared for." (p.25) "The self operates in the intricate and subtle dialectic between spontaneous vitality and self expression on the one hand and the requirement, crucial for survival, to preserve secure and familiar connections with others on the other." (p.132-133) To Mitchell, "the hope inspired by psychoanalysis in our time is grounded in personal meaning, not rational consensus." (p.21) Most important is the "establishment of a richer, more authentic sense of identity" (p.24)—certainly, our 5th principle where the primary question becomes, "How meaningful and authentic is a person's experience and expression of herself? Richness in living or psychopathology is the product not of instinctual vicissitudes but of truth or falseness with respect to one's own experience" (p.132-133)

The telos of stage II is a true 'individuality', genuine freedom and self determining autonomy which can be gained only through the experience of radical connectedness and the interpenetration of self and world, individual and collective at the mental-cultural level. Without giving up its 5/11 centricity, the self is called to manifest it in a more mature and openly inclusive fashion as expressed by Raimondo Pannikar: "We are the centre of the universe, because as a microcosm we reflect the whole, but we are not the circumference of Reality. We can only be a center when we have no dimension of our own and are open to an ever greater circumference. The center stifles the moment it draws a circumference upon itself."(p239) The self formed through stage I experiences its distinction and separation, yet in fact stands face to face with an overwhelming collective power. As it enters stage II, it can experience its self-determining freedom and distinction (its choices) as an awesome burden, or in the face of the looming 'father', the community, the collective, it can experience a powerful fear and guilt. Consequently, from a lack of a 'courage to be' it may surrender to a conformity that marks a lower level expression of the archetypal challenge of stage II. But optimally, the 'courage to be' as a distinct self gradually begins to incorporate a 'courage to be with others' as co-creators of a mutual world (prefigured in the postmodern constructivist paradigm) moving beyond the unconscious and conventionally conformist pressures of mainstream society and tradition. As Tillich well expresses this point:

Ontological self affirmation...defends against nonbeing and affirms courageously by taking nonbeing upon oneself. The threatened loss of it is the essence of anxiety, and the awareness of concrete threats to it is the essence of fear...Self affirmation, if it is done in spite of the threat of nonbeing, is the courage to be. But it is not the courage to be as oneself, it is the 'courage to be as a part'....The courage to be as a part is the courage to affirm one's own being by participation. (p.86-90).

Virgo/Pisces (6/12) marks the phase where upon directly meeting or encountering the ‘karmic results’of the Outward arc, we begin to question the social, psychological and even metaphysical limitations of ‘all that is’ up to the Leo/Aquarius (5/11) phase. Or conversely, it is where we fail through refusing to so question, thus leading to breakdown and pathology (the negative meanings of the 12th and 6th houses). Psychological change at this stage where the Day force and Night force are moving toward balance—the intermingling of collective and individual—involves going beyond the strictly individual psychological paradigm. The psyche exists in relation to others, to society, to nature; its pathologies are not only individual but collective. In seeking personal psychological health, especially at this stage of history, we must come to terms with and forge a psychologically adequate relationship to the reality of historical pathologies—patriarchal oppression, human rights abuses, incessant war and environmental destruction. The tendency in our overly individualized culture with its foundational subject/object split is to over psychologize that which actually lies beyond personal psychology even as it requires personal psychological adjustment. A revealing story is told by deep ecologist Joanna Macy (1995) who once shared her feelings of outrage over the destruction of old growth forests with a psychotherapist who informed her that the bulldozers represented her libido and that her distress sprang from the fear of her own sexuality. This is surely a bald case of psychologizing away important political and ecological realities within which the individual is always situated and to which the individual is required, optimally, to respond in creative and evolutionarily viable ways for the sake of self, of species and ultimately of the whole planet. It is at the 6/12 stage that these issues of past karma, both individual and collective, become critical for the awakening of a self awareness (certainly consistent with the consensus meanings of the sixth and twelfth principles) which is moving toward a deeper awareness of self in relation to the natural and social-political worlds.

According to ecopsychology (Rozsack, Hillman, Abram, Metzner, Macy, Mack, Fisher et al), individual psychopathology has its roots in the historical human pathological relation to, nee divorce from, the natural world following the demise of the web-of-life consciousness of the earliest indigenous societies. Consequently, as we face biospheric disaster at this critical point in history, there can be no real meaning to individual therapy without opening to the truth of our present situation and its historical paradigmatic roots. Nothing less than a radical transformation of consciousness—individual and collective—is called for, urgently pointing us toward the beginnings of the transforming Return arc at the horizon as we reap the harvest of the Outward arc.


1. According to Sheldrake the regularities of nature, rather than compelling the metaphysical belief in eternal Pythagorean mathematical laws subtending nature (or compelling a strictly subjectivist interpretation where the laws are simple human models), can be seen as cosmic habits, deep grooves within which cosmic and later biological processes continue to run. Such grooves were established and maintained by natural selective pressures and morphic resonance having first emerged spontaneously through the unpredictable creativity of nature: “In an evolutionary universe, the regularities of nature evolve; that is what evolution is all about.” (1994, p.130).
. In response to Darwin’s emphasis on the competitive aspects of natural selection (what has been called later, the ‘survival of the fittest‘) the Russian biologist Petr Kropotkin pointed out the important patterns of cooperation that has allowed evolutionary development. While organisms do compete with other organisms, the struggle of organism and environment is best accomplished through ‘mutual aid’. Resonant to this pair of thinkers who emphasize one or the other side of the individual/social dynamic is that of the genetic psychologist Piaget and his invarient and universal individual cognitive structures as distinct from that of Lev Vygotsky who emphasised the mediated cultural and social aspects of learning and cognition (the “zone of proximal development’).
The complex holonic logic of agency and communion as applied to both individual and social 'holons' is explained in chapter 10.
In Jung's [1971] words, enantiodromia in the philosophy of Heraclitus "is used to designate the play of opposites in the course of events—the view that everything that exists turns into its opposite." Jung uses the term "for the emergence of the unconscious opposite in the course of time...[and] practically always occurs when an extreme, one-sided tendency dominates conscious life." [p. 425,426])
. The German terms Sittlichkeit & Moralitat signify Hegel’s distinction, respectively, between the ethical life of the community which includes our obligations to it, and the Kantian individual conscience guided by the moral ‘ought’ independent of the community. Through these terms, Hegel is emphasizing the necessity of both components in morality
the social giving content to the formalthus correcting Kant’s alleged overemphasis on the rational autonomous individual.

Continue to Chapter 10