Posted on 08/20/2010 12:31:24 PM PDT by James C. Bennett
“When Julian Jaynes . . . speculates that until late in the twentieth millennium B.C. men had no consciousness but were automatically obeying the voices of the gods, we are astounded but compelled to follow this remarkable thesis.” — John Updike — Review
20th millennium? 20,000 BC?
I remember the main mansion. It had female nude statues not only pained in flesh tones but with pubic hair.
The mansion was located right on Sunset Boulevard. Tourists and locals alike would gather around and gawk at the garish taste.
Apparently this Saudi family got in trouble with the law and abandoned the property later. But during its brief existence the mansion was the big joke of L.A.
These are great.
Wish I had some large, high-resolution versions.
interesting ping,
shield you eyes or skip #5
‘When Julian Jaynes...speculates that until late in the second millennium B.C. men had no consciousness but were automatically obeying the voices of gods, we are astounded but compelled to follow this remarkable thesis through all the corroborative evidence...In the book, which I have read over and over again and am still studying (and highly recommend), Jaynes points to a period around 3,000 years ago.
-John Updike, The New Yorker
Interesting. I’ll put that on my list of books to read.
That would rather mean that humanity appeared on the scene much later than we have been assuming, wouldn’t it?
Anatomically-modern man appeared what, 100k years ago? But was he a person if he was not conscious? How can a being that is not conscious do what the ancients did?
” color perception of ancient Greeks was quite limited compared to that of modern man”
How could we know that? I mean, I don’t even know if you experience the same thing I do when light in the green bandwidth strikes your cone cells and your brain processes the information. You could be experience what I do when I see red, or you could be experiencing something totally outside my ken.
“And without the eyes colored in. It makes them seem mysterious and timeless, above those looking at them.”
Aren’t we then ascribing properties to them that they don’t actually possess, given the way they originally appeared?
You will be astounded at the theories of Jaynes (I found what appears to be a complete copy of Origin of Consciousness... available online at the link). In fact, because Jaynes traces the development of consciousness from ancient times right down through history, it will completely change the way you view the world even if you don't agree with him.
His theories put the Bible itself and all the amazing things the ancients accomplished in a new light.
BTW Jaynes very discussion of how of consciousness itself is defined and perceived is fascinating. Here's an excerpt...
‘Consciousness is a much smaller part of our mental life than we are conscious of, because we cannot be conscious of what we are not conscious of. How simple that is to say; how difficult to appreciate!And this...It is like asking a flashlight in a dark room to search around for something that does not have any light shining upon it. The flashlight, since there is light in whatever direction it turns, would have to conclude that there is light everywhere. And so consciousness can seem to pervade all mentality when actually it does not.
It is much more probable that the seeming continuity of consciousness is really an illusion, just as most of the other metaphors about consciousness are. In our flashlight analogy, the flashlight would be conscious of being on only when it is on. Though huge gaps of time occurred, providing things were generally the same, it would seem to the flashlight itself that the light had been continuously on.
We are thus conscious less of the time than we think, because we cannot be conscious of when we are not conscious…. so consciousness knits itself over its time gaps and gives the illusion of continuity.’
‘If [John] Locke had lived in our time, he would have used the metaphor of a camera rather than a slate. But the idea is the same. And most people would protest emphatically that the - chief function of consciousness is to store up experience, to copy it as a camera does, so that it can be reflected upon at some future time.And as to the very question of where consciousness takes place, check this out...So it seems. But consider the following problems: Does the door of your room open from the right or the left? Which is your second longest finger? At a stoplight, is it the red or the green that is on top? How many teeth do you see when brushing your teeth? What letters are associated with what numbers on a telephone dial? If you are in a familiar room, without turning around, write down all the items on the wall just behind you, and then look.
I think you will be surprised how little you can retrospect in consciousness on the supposed images you have stored from so much previous attentive experience. If the familiar door suddenly opened the other way, if another finger suddenly grew longer, if the red light were differently placed, or you had an extra tooth, or the telephone were made differently, or a new window latch had been put on the window behind you, you would know it immediately, showing that you all along "knew', but not consciously so. Familiar to psychologists, this is the distinction between recognition and recall. What you can consciously recall is a thimbleful to the huge oceans of your actual knowledge.’
‘Everyone, or almost everyone, immediately replies [to the question of where consciousness takes place], in my head. This is because when we introspect, we seem to look inward on an inner space somewhere behind our eyes. But what on earth do we mean by 'look'? We even close our eyes sometimes to introspect even more clearly. Upon what? Its spatial character seems unquestionable. Moreover we seem to move or at least 'look' in different directions. And if we press ourselves too strongly to further characterize this space (apart from its imagined contents), we feel a vague irritation, as if there were something that did not want to be known, some quality which to question was somehow ungrateful, like rudeness in a friendly place.We not only locate this space of consciousness inside our own heads. We also assume it is there in others'. In talking with a friend, maintaining periodic eye-to-eye contact (that remnant of our primate past when eye-to-eye contact was concerned in establishing tribal hierarchies), we are always assuming a space behind our companion's eyes into which we are talking, similar to the space we imagine inside our own heads where we are talking from.
And this is the very heartbeat of the matter. For we know perfectly well that there is no such space in anyone's head at all! There is nothing inside my head or yours except physiological tissue of one sort or another. And the fact that it is predominantly neurological tissue is irrelevant.
Now this thought takes a little thinking to get used to. It means that we are continually inventing these spaces in our own and other people's heads, knowing perfectly well that they don't exist anatomically and the location of these 'spaces' is indeed quite arbitrary….
Let us not make a mistake. When I am conscious, I am always and definitely using certain parts of my brain inside my head. But so am I when riding a bicycle, and the bicycle riding does not go on inside my head. The cases are different of course, since bicycle riding has a definite geographical location, while consciousness does not. In reality, consciousness has no location whatever except as we imagine it has.’
The sad part is that most people know the sttues were painted.
The British Museum spent a gread deal of time LITERALLY scrping off pristine paint off of statues. THEN they put acids to whiten the brown marbles.
why?
1. because it helped sell alibaster copies
and
2. it was easier to pull molds from the originals to sell to wealthy aristocrats.
This is particularly true with the stolen parthenon marbles in the british museum.
actually they did not have “bright” colors.
you have to think in terms of browns, beige, yellow, and gold leaf.
However, it is possible to make certain assumptions as to the width of color band perception because band size can be objectively measured. For example, if a color palette with a wide array of colors is presented to a test group, the number of separate and distinct colors identified by each can be determined and expressed numerically.
“For example, if a color palette with a wide array of colors is presented to a test group, the number of separate and distinct colors identified by each can be determined and expressed numerically.”
Yes, but—quite obviously—we have no subjects from antiquity, so I’m left wondering how they can make that assertion.
If I had known it was available online, I might have read it through at least once before buying a hard copy.
“link in my other post to the online publication of Origin of Consciousness...?”
No, I missed that link. I’ll go back and look.
Paint just seems to taint the romanticism of the old sculptures.
Hopefully though it is enough to get you started.
That must be some UV light to make that quiver of arrows appear out of nowhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.