As march is coming to an end I am constantly being reminded of the forever natural struggle of life and death. Spring always fills me with so much hope but reminds me that all things will eventually perish. Usually at this time of year I find myself at the David Lynch weekend talking about consciousness and the unified field. I disagree with almost everything they say at the event every year but find the ideas compelling none the less. Under the beliefs of Transcendental Meditation established by Maharishi they preach about us all sharing one unified consciousness that stretches across the cosmos. Rubbish I say. Fronting these cult like speeches is none other than Quantum physicist John Hagelin whose everyword condesends any inteligence you thought you might have, he says its a "Scientific Fact" (bullshit) that the universe is linked by consciousness, what many scientist believe to be an unexplainable dark matter is indeed our souls traveling through space and time, oh and they believe that TM can creat world peace. My negative tone aside I do think meditation is an important and very rewarding practise and that it is a great alternative to anti-anxiety medications. I am amazed though that such educated and delightfully creative brains are still sucked into this denial of death. I think we will try to come with any alternative other than our demise, if people were left with the only thought of death or being reincarnated as a cockroach they would probably be more comfortable excepting the latter. Why is this. What is it about our brains that makes death so hard to percieve. I for one welcome its idea, of course I don't want it to happen any time soon, but accepting it I feel makes each and every moment worth something. Not for some eternal reward but the reward of right now, the miraculous gift of being alive. Why should we need to be tricked into finding morality, happiness, hope? My life has felt much more rewarding from the day I accepted my fate. I could go on and on about this but I am going to do some more research on the psychology of the idea and get back to you. I am currently reading a book called "Conversations on Consciousness" A collection of interviews by journalist Susan Blackmore with the worlds leading brain specialists. I like this book because it is dealing with Consciousness from a scientific percpective instead of a dreamy utilitarian one.
Susan- "Do you think consciousness survives the death of the physical body?"
Patricia Churchland- "We do know that when a large number of neurons die, as in Alzheimer's disease, deficits in memory occur, cognition is impaired, personality changes, awareness of what other people are thinking and feeling, and awareness of time and place, are impaired. I see this as a kind of fading of many aspects of the self and its capacities, and one cannot but feel that the person one knew and loved is no longer there. All the evidence shows that the brain is necessary for functions associated with consciousness. I am not sure how consciousness could survive the death of the brain if it needs neurons to sustain it.
At a personal level, I should say that I feel more settled about death and dying having understood that it is the end, than I would if I were trying to nourish an unrealistic hope in some kind of heaven. When I was a child, a friend who was a native Indian once remarked to me that he felt sorry for Christians, as they labour under the delusion of a heaven, while he, in contrast, could prepare for finality, pass on the stories of the person's life, help them to die easily, and accept the finality for what it is. That struck me as sensible then, and it does so still."
Paul Churchland- "I agree. Consciousness is just one particularly sophisticated deminsion of biological life. When my biological life ends, so does my consciousness. I am more than content with this. The prospect of being conscious for an unending eternity is quite frankly appalling. When my time comes, let me sleep."
Here is an interview I did with David at the conference last March
Interview w/ David Lynch about creativity and consciousness! from Release TV on Vimeo.
Caravaggio's Supper at Emmaus Photo: AP
The 16th century master used modern darkroom techniques to create his masterpieces, more than 200 years before the invention of the camera.
Italian researchers claim the technique explained why many of his subjects were left-handed – the image projected onto the canvas had been reversed.
Art history scholars have long known that Caravaggio worked in a sort of darkroom, illuminating his subjects through a hole in the ceiling and projecting the image onto a canvas using a lens and a mirror.
But Mrs Lapucci is the first researcher to suggest that he treated the canvas with light-sensitive substances, including a luminescent powder made from crushed fireflies, in order to "fix" the image as 19th century photographers later would.
He then used white lead mixed with chemicals such as mercury, to outline the image in greater clarity, she believes.
Mrs Lapucci, who teaches at an arts institute in Florence, the Studio Art Centers International, based her hypothesis on research by British artist David Hockney, who wrote in his 2001 book "Secret Knowledge" that many old masters used optical instruments to compose their paintings.
"There is lots of proof, notably the fact that Caravaggio never made preliminary sketches," said Mrs Lapucci.
An "abnormal number" of Caravaggio's subjects are left-handed. "That could be explained by the fact that the image projected on the canvas was backwards," she said.
Caravaggio's use of mercury might explain his violent temper – prolonged exposure to the chemical can affect the central nervous system.
Caravaggio was notorious during his lifetime for becoming involved in brawls, one of which ended in the death in 1606 of a young adversary, which forced the artist to flee from Rome to Malta.
Dr John Spike, a Caravaggio expert based in Florence, said that to prove the thesis that the Baroque master used chemicals to "fix" projected images, the paint in the pictures would have to be subjected to laboratory testing.
"If evidence was found, that would be amazing. But it would involve taking samples from some of the world's greatest masterpieces, which is not ideal.
"We know that he worked in a dark room and that he was fascinated by mirrors, and he was living in Rome at a time when it was a hotbed of scientific inquiry. "Might he have used this technique? It's possible – his protector, Cardinal Del Monte, was also the protector of Galileo, and they were all fascinated by optics and the new physics."
Leonardo da Vinci, who lived in the century before Caravaggio, was familiar with the principles of the "camera obscura" but Mrs Lapucci believes Caravaggio was the first to use it in paintings.
Posts
