Transition from Magic to Mythical Consciousness
Context
See: Magic Consciousness for background.
Jennifer Gidley:
"This section deals with the transition from the hunting to the farming peoples. In the following section,when mythical consciousness fully awakens, we are dealing with the mining peoples—the beginning ofthe bronze and iron ages. Interestingly, Teilhard de Chardin also refers to a similar three phases: a “thinscattering of hunting groups” of the Ancient World; a more dense scattering of “agricultural groupsinstalled in fertile valleys;” and, the “first civilizations” (Teilhard de Chardin, 1959/2004, p. 169-170). Although Neolithic literally means ’new stone age,’ the term is generally used to refer to the culturalmovements of agriculture and pastoralism and the social organization features, such as larger settlements,to accomplish them (Barnard & Spencer, 1998, p. 615). The term, Mesolithic, refers to the middle ‘stone age’ period between the Paleolithic and the Neolithic.It is generally associated with European development at the end of the glacial period, and is characterized by “microlithic industries” (Barnard & Spencer, 1998, p. 613).
Discussion
Jennifer Gidley on the Magic-Mythical Transition :
"Firstly came the hunting peoples, then the farming peoples and thirdly the development of mining, which brought to light what is under the Earth. (Steiner, 1982a, Lecture XXX)These animal breeders as well as the hunting and nomadic cultures, are predominantly rooted in the magic culture. Strictly agricultural cultures on the other hand already take part in the mythical structure. (Gebser, 1949/1985, p. 305)Farming was the most obvious
effect , or perhaps vehicle, of a deeper transformation in structures of consciousness: it was the earliest expression, that is, of a shift from magical-typhonic to what we will call mythic-membership consciousness (level 3). (Wilber, 1996c, p. 93)There appears to be something of a cultural hiatus or
aporia in the period between the end of the Younger Dryas—approximately 9,500 BCE and the beginning of the Neolithic period (c.8,000 BCE). This roughly demarcates the period referred to as the Mesolithic (c. 10,000-8,000BCE) an archeological period that appears to have a dramatically reduced status compared to the Paleolithic and the Neolithic. This is perhaps not surprising considering the dramatic environmental change occurring, during which “most of the final (warming) transition may have occurred in just a few years” (Colman, 2007, Abstract). Between the height of the cultural activity of the Upper Paleolithic glacial period and the establishment of agricultural settlements in the fertile crescent of Mesopotamia—China’s Yellow River and the Indus and Nile valleys— the sea level rose approximately 120 meters, with much of this occurring between 12,000 BCE and 8,000 BCE.
Geoscientists have demonstrated the significance of the end of the last glacial age by introducing a new geological epoch—the Holocene Epoch which continues into the present time. This also conventionally marks the beginning of the Neolithic period. As the geo-climatic conditions began to stabilize, the climatic changes associated with the end of glaciation actually facilitated the development of farming of cereals and the domestication of sheep, goats, pigs and cattle through the warmer climate and flooding of river basins.
As mentioned previously, there are discrepancies between Gebser’s and Wilber’s temporal situating of magic and mythical consciousness. My interpretation is that the period c. 9,500-3,000 BCE is a significant period of transition between magic and mythical consciousness throughout the world. This period encompasses the latter part of Gebser’s magic as well as Wilber’s low mythic-membership period (9,500-4,500 BCE) and the beginnings of his high mythic-membership period (4,500-1,500 BCE) (Wilber, 1996c, p. 110). There are also contradictions within Gebser’s own dating of this transition.
I propose that Steiner’s narrative makes a unique contribution to the understanding of this lengthy transition period. Firstly, he acknowledged an ecological condition of great geo-climatic instability from the end of the ice age. Secondly, he drew attention to the potential influence on culture and consciousness of the precession of the equinoxes every 2,160 years approximately. Steiner identified two specific cultural periods prior to 3,000 BCE—the Asiatic, or ancient Indian (c. 7,200-5,000 BCE); and the ancient Persian (c. 5,000-3,000 BCE). Incidentally, Gebser(1949/1985) also identified two major cultural epochs—the domesticating-agricultural, and the tool-making and craft cultures. He particularly noted the significance of the shift from domesticating to agricultural cultures in relation to the transition from magic to mythical consciousness (see introductory quote). He regards the former as tribal and the latter as matriarchal societies attuned to the cycles of “maternal realm of the earth” (p. 305). Wilber(1996c) concurs that the great planting cultures that led up to the development of the city-states, were both mythic and matriarchal (p. 124). Wilber also discussed the significance of farming in facilitating the major cultural developments that occurred during the next few millennia. Of particular interest in Steiner’s narrative about this transition period is the ancient pre-history of Asia—particularly India—and Mesopotamia —Persia-Sumeria. Although he did extensive research on these cultural periods, giving hundreds of lectures that have been published in dozens of volumes, I can introduce only a few fragments within the space of this section.
He focused on these particular regions during that period based on his claims that:
(a) they provided continuous, genealogical links to a cultural tradition of ancient spiritual wisdom;
b) their philosophical and scientific traditions were foundational to later European philosophical, scientific and cultural developments; and
(c) the cultural activities that took place there were significant in enabling the refining and consolidating of important subtle aspects of human biological and psycho-spiritual development.
Jungian depth psychologists and transpersonal psychologists—including Wilber — have contributed significantly during the 20th century to increased understanding of subtle aspects of human psycho-spiritual development (Bache, 2000; Boadella, 1998; Ferrer, 2002; Grof, 2000,1988; Jung, 1990; Orme-Johnson, 2000; Walsh & Vaughan, 1993; Wehr, 2002; Wilber, 1996b,2000b; 2005b, Part I). Steiner also undertook significant phenomenological research into the subtle dimensions of human psychology but this has been largely overlooked even in transpersonal psychology.
Steiner proposed that in addition to the physical body, in order for humans to function in the complex ways that we do today, other more subtle bodies also needed to be developed in our species as a whole. He identified a life body through which our energy and vitality flows and an emotional body through which we experience feelings and passions(Steiner, 1909/1965). Both Gebser (1949/1985, p. 67, 261) and Wilber conflate the vital and emotional dimensions to some extent, perhaps contributing to the complexity of the transition from magic to mythical consciousness. Wilber (2005a, Part 4, p.1) conflates them by using the hyphenated term vital-emotional that he attributes incorrectly—according to my research—to Sri Aurobindo.
While this is a vast area of research beyond the scope of this paper, what is relevant is that Steiner claimed that these subtle bodies were being developed and refined during this period of evolution — the life, or vital, body in the first cultural period, that he called the ancient Asiatic/Indian, and the emotional body during the second cultural period, that he called the ancient Persian (Steiner, 1910/1939, 1986a, 1990a). Several contemporary researchers have begun to research and extend Steiner’s approach to spiritual psychology (Kuhlewind, 1988;Sardello, 1990, 1995). A beginning has also been made in researching the relationship between Jung’s depth psychology and Steiner’s spiritual psychology (Wehr, 2002).This section may contribute potential new insights into subtle aspects of the evolution of human biopsychology."