View source for Art and Culture in a Glacial-Landscape


=Discussion=

Jennifer Gidley:

==Magic Connectionism: [[Art and Culture in a Glacial-Landscape]]==
 
Of the period we are about to enter, and with that “subjective mood” in mind, I suggest quite simply: the first men and women to appear on the earth during these times . . . were not just simple hunters and gatherers—they were magicians. (Wilber, 1996c, p. 43)
 
Everything that is still slumbering in the soul is at the outset for magic [consciousness]reflected mirror-like in the outside world . . . as we experience dream events in sleep . . . Ina sense one may say that in this structure of consciousness was not yet [internalized], but still resting in the world. (Gebser, 1949/1985, p. 46)In the earliest period [humans] possessed strong magical powers. With these powers [they]. . . mastered the forces of nature and in a certain way [were] able to see into the spiritual world. Clairvoyance then gradually faded. [Humans] were destined to found the culture belonging to the earth; they were to descend to the earth in the real sense. (Steiner, 1978b, p. 96)


===Context for the Flourishing of Palaeo-aesthetics===

‘Art’ has always been associated with the early cultural ‘success’ of anatomically modern humans, and with the establishment of what appears to be a ‘fully human’ cultural pattern.(Lock & Peters, 1999, p. 289)This decade-old conventional archaeological statement appears to be becoming outmoded by the increasing body of evidence of aesthetic development in early Homo species, such as H. Heidelbergensis and H. Neanderthalensis and the growing interest in paleo art outside of Europe(as discussed in some detail in Appendix C). The last glacial age (c. 70,000-10,000 BP) was a period of great development of culture and human consciousness. This is within the late Pleistocene age and up to the beginning of the current geological epoch—the Holocene that began c. 10,000 BP. In archeological terms this includes the latter part of the Middle Paleolithic period and the entire Upper Paleolithic period. As indicated earlier the transition from the Lower to the Middle Paleolithic periods was highly significant for human evolution with several species of the Homo genus co-habiting the planet—  H. Heidelbergensis identified in Africa and Eurasia (500,000-100,000 BP), followed by H. Neanderthalensis from western Eurasia (250,000-30,000 BP) and H. Sapiens (appearing c. 100,000 BP) now frequently referred to as anatomically modern human (Key, 2000; Lock & Peters, 1999; Wood & Collard, 1999).Since the discovery in 1940 of significant rock art in the Lascaux caves in France, several sub-cultures have been identified by paleoanthropologists (Conard & Bolus, 2003). These are detailed in Appendix C. There is currently much debate in archaeological and other discourse that study human origins. The new field of evolutionary psychology is a quasi-scientific field that investigates such matters (Sedikedes, Skowronski, & Dunbar, 2006). However, even within this field there is contestation regarding the evolution of what is called symbolic self : the ability to “consider the self as an object of one’s own reflection;” “to store the products of such reflections in memory;” and to regulate its relations with the “social and physical environment”(Sedikedes, Skowronski, & Dunbar, 2006, p. 56). Constantine Sedikedes and his colleagues propose that the human self  emerged with the “cultural revolution . . . in Africa some time prior to 100 [thousand years ago]” (p. 66). This is considerably earlier than the widely held belief that it was simultaneous with the explosion of cultural activity in the Upper Paleolithic period in Europe around c. 40,000 years ago. A recent edited book has explored—perhaps for the first time — an archaeological theoretic perspective that considers the possible role of the individual in Lower and Middle Paleolithic times (Gamble & Porr, 2005). The latter points beyond the dualism of cultural explosion and gradualist models to “a complex mosaic pattern of cognitive advances” (Clack, 2005, p. 281). The notion that individuals as such existed in these times and could be situated in their “landscapes rather than their evolutionary stages” (Clack, 2005, p. 282),may lend some indirect support to the heterodox notions of Steiner and Wilber that at any onetime in evolutionary human history there have been groups of individuals, in each cultural landscape, operating at higher developmental levels than the majority of humans. Another major change that is arising is arguably part of what I will speak more about in the penultimate section of this paper—the evolution of discourses through the emergence of postformal-integral-planetary consciousness. In fields such as archaeology and anthropology the shift from modernism to postmodernism is particularly evident leading to a spectrum of theories in relation to evolution, development and progress (Barnard & Spencer, 1998; M. Johnson,1999). Archaeology professor Julian Thomas refers to the need to introduce hermeneutic, phenomenological, feminist and post-structuralist philosophies into the field of archaeology(Thomas, 1998, 2004). Such a postmodern approach to archaeological research is being undertaken by rock art scientist Robert Bednarik, who has been developing a more postformal epistemological approach incorporating taphonomy, cultural hermeneutics, and notions from the field of semiotics (Bednarik, 1994, 2003b, 2003c, 2006a; 2006b). Numerous non-Anglophone scholars —particularly from Eastern Europe are pursuing a postformal, semiotic approach to their archaeological research (Antonova & Rayevsky, 2002; Gheorghiu, 2002; Klejn,2005, 2006; Stoliar, 2006; Yevglevsky, 2002, 2005, 2006). 

Steiner, Gebser and Wilber all refer to the notion of magic—or magical thinking—as being a significant factor in this second major movement of consciousness. Another complexity is that the temporal placements of this movement of consciousness are contradictory. Gebser points to the possibility that there may have been “one or even two further structures of consciousness between the archaic and magic, such as a “post-archaic” and a “pre-magical” structure” (Gebser, 1949/1985, p. 45). Because of lack of evidence to support this theory he proposes that: The magic “epoch” as we see it, not only encompasses an extended “era” but also a variety of modes of manifestation and unfolding that are only imprecisely distinguishable from one another. [Yet] . . . we shall consider all such modes to be manifestations of magic[consciousness]. (Gebser, 1949/1985, p. 46) Gebser’s focus for the magic structure is mainly on the Upper Paleolithic cave paintings in Europe — particularly hunting scenes. Incidentally this perspective was quite conventional within early 20th century anthropology, arising from the “first round” of ethnographic interpretations of “art-as-hunting-magic” (Conkey, 1999, p. 300). He also draws on examples of magic consciousness from much later times where he claims that it overlaps with his notion of mythic consciousness that emerged approximately 3,000 BCE (Gebser, 1949/1985, p. 57). Wilber, onthe other hand, regards what he calls the “magical-typhonic period” as beginning with Homo Sapiens and extending up to the end of the Paleolithic period. Incidentally, Habermas, uses the term “magical-animistic” to refer to the representational world of Paleolithic societies(Habermas, 1979, p. 104). (See Appendix A for more discussion of issues surrounding constructions of time.)Steiner also refers to a major movement of consciousness up to the end of the glacial period for which he uses the anachronistic term Atlantean in much of his writing, which was a conventional archaeological term in his day. In the early 20th century when Steiner was writing, literary and archaeological writing referred to Plato’s references in both the Critias and Timaeus to an ancient civilization—  Atlantis —that had been destroyed by climatic catastrophe approximately 9,500 BCE. Comparative literature researcher, André Spears, reviews and discusses references to Plato’s Atlantis theory in the literary/philosophical works of D. H. Lawrence, Antonin Artaud and Charles Olsen (Spears, 2001). He also notes “through the 19th and early 20th  centuries, it was not uncommon for archaeologists working in Mexico to link Mesoamerican civilization . . . with the legend of Atlantis” (Spears, 2001). This was the academic context of Steiner’s usage of the term Atlantean for the glacial age. Steiner(1904/1959) also noted that the culture and consciousness he referred to in this period also took place “in the neighboring regions of what today is Asia, Africa, Europe, and America. What took place in these regions later, developed from this earlier civilization” (p. 41). Intriguingly, some recent European archaeological and paleo-geological research has provided some tentative support for the claims in Plato’s dialogues. However, space does not allow a further digression. Perhaps the story of Atlantis may not be over yet."

https://www.academia.edu/197841/The_Evolution_of_Consciousness_as_a_Planetary_Imperative_An_Integration_of_Integral_Views