Paulus wrote:
Hi Tuesday
It's been years since I read Jung or Neumann and I was more sympathetic then to ideas like 'collective unconsciousness' and marvelled Jung's little tidbits like the 'scarab beetle' story etc, so I'm not sure how the ego could possibly have 'developed' in the last few thousand years when a theory of your own mind is essential for a theory or others minds and thus language which has surely a history going way past the cultural explosion 50-60,000 years ago and thus way before the emergence of any kind of art.
tuesday wrote:
what do you think about the move from representational imagery to abstract imagery - like in the rock art in Er lannac? and that theory about the bicameral mind is interesting - if very speculative.
I tend to think of such movement the other way round, if y' get mi drift. Though having not been and studied the region in-the-field, it'd be difficult for me to say with any real conviction. I think each site needs examining in its individual context. CRs throughout Britain are notable in their overt lack of linearity. Human figurines are few & far between, more indicative of a culture with only an emergent ego-psychology, perhaps synoynmous with the aboriginal dreamtime psychography; something which Dowson, Devereux, etc, think along. But hey - we could be talking bollox!I'm not 100% about J. Jaynes' bicameral material misself; though it's gotta be explored as an idea. I'm more a Jungian evolutionist misself. Have y' read Neumann's History & Origins of Consciousness? It outlines the emergence of primary symbols prior to, and during the development of ego - and one of the constant symbols is, simply, the cup-and-ring (though Neumann makes no mention of CRs, as I don't think he knew about them!).
Are they talking about expression of ego or the actual ego itself?
