|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,370
Points: 7,185
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
Okay cool that was my feeling.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 2,116
Points: 6,355
Location: United States, FL
|
The topic of this chapter is Literate Bicameral Theocracies. In contrast to the last chapter in which the evidence for bicameralism was developed from outside observers, this chapter attempts to present the state of mind of such societies "in their own words." Using the section headings, sub headings, and representative quotations, I shall attempt to create an outline and share this here for further discussion. Jaynes p 178 (184) wrote:
MESOPOTAMIA: THE GODS
AS OWNERS
Throughout Mesopotamia, from the earliest times of Sumer and
Akkad, all lands were owned by gods and men were their slaves.
Of this, the cuneiform texts leave no doubt whatever.1 Each city-
state had its own principal god, and the king was described in the
very earliest written documents that we have as "the tenant
farmer of the god."
The god himself was a statue. The statue was not of a god (as
we would say) but the god himself.
Jaynes p 180 (186) wrote: According to some interpretations of the cuneiform, the food was brought in and then the statue-god was left to enjoy his meal alone. Then, after a suitable period of time, the steward-king entered the shrine room from a side entrance and ate what the god had left. How is all this possible, continuing as it did in some form for thousands of years as the central focus of life, unless we posit that the human beings heard the statues speak to them even as the heroes of the Iliad heard their gods or Joan of Arc heard hers? And indeed had to hear them speak to know what to do. We can read this directly in the texts themselves. The great Cylinder B of Gudea (about 2100 B.C.) describes how in a new temple for his god Ningirsu, the priestesses placed Barton wrote:…the goddesses Zazaru, Impae, Urentaea, Khegirnunna,
Kheshagga, Guurmu, Zaarmu, who are the seven children of
the brood of Bau that were begotten by the lord Ningirsu, to
utter favorable decisions by the side of the lord Ningirsu.2 Jaynes p 182 (188) wrote:
The Mouth-Washing Ceremonies
Further evidence that such statues were aids to the halluci-
nated voices is found in other ceremonies all described precisely
and concretely on cuneiform tablets. The statue-gods were made
in the bit-mummu, a special divine craftsman’s house. Even the
craftsmen were directed in their work by a craftsman-god,
Mummuy who ‘dictated’ how to make the statue. Before being
installed in their shrines, the statues underwent mis-pi which
means mouth-washing, and the ritual of pit-pi or “opening of the
mouth.”
Jaynes pp 184-185 (190-191) wrote:
When the King Becomes a God
This possibility shows that the distinction I have made between
the steward-king type of theocracy and the god-king is not an
absolute one. Moreover, on several cuneiform tablets, a number
of the earlier Mesopotamian kings have beside their names the
eight-pointed star which is the determinative sign indicating
deity. In one early text, eleven out of a larger number of kings of
Ur and Isin are given this or another divine determinative. A
number of theories have been proposed as to what this means,
none of them very gripping.
Jaynes pp 185-186 (191-192) wrote:
EGYPT: THE KINGS AS GODS
…
The Memphite Theology
Let us begin with the famous "Memphite Theology." This is
an eighth-century B.C. granite block on which a previous work
(presumably a rotting leather roll of around 3000 B.C.) was
copied. It begins with a reference to a "creator" god Ptah, pro-
ceeds through the quarrels of the gods Horus and Seth and their
arbitration by Geb, describes the construction of the royal god-
house at Memphis, and then, in a famous final section, states that
the various gods are variations of Ptah's voice or "tongue."
Now when "tongue" here is translated as something like the
"objectified conceptions of his mind," as it so often is, this is
surely an imposing of modern categories upon the texts.14 Ideas
such as objectified conceptions of a mind, or even the notion of
something spiritual being manifested, are of much later develop-
ment. It is generally agreed that the ancient Egyptian language,
like the Sumerian, was concrete from first to last. To maintain
that it is expressing abstract thoughts would seem to me an
intrusion of the modern idea that men have always been the
same. Also, when the Memphite Theology speaks of the tongue
or voices as that from which everything was created, I suspect
that the very word "created" may also be a modern imposition, and
the more proper translation might be commanded. This theol-
ogy, then, is essentially a myth about language, and what Ptah is
really commanding is indeed the bicameral voices which began,
controlled, and directed Egyptian civilization.
Jaynes p 187 (193) wrote:
Osiris, the Dead King's Voice
There has been some astonishment that mythology and reality
should be so mixed that the heavenly contention of Horus and
Seth is over real land, and that the figure of Osiris in the last
section has a real grave in Memphis, and also that each king at
death becomes Osiris, just as each king in life is Horus. If it is
assumed that all of these figures are particular voice hallucina-
tions heard by kings and their next in rank, and that the voice of
a king could continue after his death and 'be' the guiding voice of
the next, and that the myths about various contentions and rela-
tionships with other gods are attempted rationalizations of con-
flicting admonitory authoritative voices mingled with the
authoritative structure in the actuality of the society, at least we
are given a new way to look at the subject.
Jaynes p 188 (194) wrote:
Mansions for Voices
That the voice and therefore the power of a god-king lived on
after his body stopped moving and breathing is certainly sug-
gested by the manner of his burial. Yet burial is the wrong word.
Such divine kings were not morosely entombed, but gaily empal-
aced.
Jaynes p 189 (195) wrote:
A New Theory of the Ka
If we could say that ancient Egypt had a psychology, we would
then have to say that its fundamental notion is the ka, and the
problem becomes what the ka is.
Jaynes p 191 (197) wrote:
Consistent with this interpretation are several other aspects of
the ka. The Egyptians' attitude toward the ka is entirely passive.
Just as in the case of the Greek gods, hearing it is tantamount to
obeying it. It empowers what it commands. Courtiers in some of
their inscriptions referring to the king say, "I did what his ka
loved" or "I did that which his ka approved,"16 which may be
interpreted as the courtier hearing the hallucinated voice of his
king approving his work.
Jaynes p 192 (198) wrote:
Texts state that when a
king sat at a meal and ate, his ka sat and ate with him. The
pyramids are full of false doors, sometimes simply painted on the
limestone walls, through which the deceased god-king's ka could
pass out into the world and be heard. It is only the king's ka
which is pictured on monuments, sometimes as a standard bearer
holding the staff of the king's head and the feather, or as a bird
perched behind the king's head. But most significant are the
representations of the king's ka as his twin in birth scenes. In
one such scene, the god Khnum is shown forming the king and
his ka on his potter's wheel. They are identical small figures
except that the ka has his left , hand pointing to his mouth,
obviously suggesting that he is what we might describe as a
persona of speech.
Jaynes p 194 (200) wrote:THE TEMPORAL CHANGES IN
THEOCRACIESThe Complexities In the millennia we have been looking at in this chapter, the complexities were apparently mounting. Many of the ceremonies and practices I have described were initiated as ways of reducing this complexity. Even in writing, the first pictographs were to label and list and sort out. And some of the first syntactical writing speaks of the overpopulation. The Sumerian epic known to us as Atrahasis bursts open with the problem: Saggs wrote:The people became numerous…
The god was depressed by their uproar
Enlil heard their noise,
He exclaimed to the great gods
The noise of mankind has become burdensome…21 as if the voices were having difficulty. The epic goes on to de- scribe how the great gods send plagues, famines, and finally a great flood (the origin of the story of the Biblical flood) to get rid of some of the "black headed ones" as the Mesopotamian gods disparagingly referred to their human slaves. Jaynes pp 197-198 (203-204) wrote:
The Idea of Law
But nothing of this extent ever happens in southern Mesopo-
tamia. Of course there are wars. City-states fought each other
over whose god and therefore which steward was to rule over
which fields. But there was never any total collapse of authority
as occurred in Mesoamerica and in Egypt at the end of the Old
Kingdom.
One of the reasons, I think, was the greater resiliency of the
steward-king type of theocracy. And another, not unconnected
reason was the use to which writing was put. Unlike in Egypt,
writing in Mesopotamia was early put to civil use. By 2100 B.C.
in Ur, the judgments of gods through their steward mediums
began to be recorded. This is the beginning of the idea of law.
Such written judgments could be in several places and be con-
tinuous through time, thus allowing the cohesiveness of a larger
society. We know of nothing similar in Egypt until almost a
millennium later.
Jaynes p 201 (207) wrote:
These rules of the stele should not be thought of in the modern
terms of laws which are enforced by police, something unknown
at that time. Rather they are lists of practices in Babylon itself,
the statements of Marduk, which needed no more enforcement
than their authenticity on the stele itself.
The fact that they were written down and, more generally, the
wide use of visual writing for communication indicate, I think, a
reduction in the auditory hallucinatory control of the bicameral
mind. Together, they put into motion cultural determinants
which, coming together with other forces a few centuries later,
resulted in a change in the very structure of the mind itself.
Edited to add color highlighting for the major sections.
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 2,116
Points: 6,355
Location: United States, FL
|
As an aside, there is an obvious lack of consideration of the evidence from China, India, Australia, and the various civilizations of Africa. It is all the more puzzling since there are extant societies in each of those areas with continuity to prehistoric societies that are available for anthropological study. While it is true that ancient Greek, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian societies would be more relevant to modern European societies and their derivatives, yet if Jaynes wished to make a case for bicameralism as something inherently human and not a special case, shouldn't he have taken these into consideration as well?
I can understand Jaynes's caution with regard to the faddish fascination with "Ancient Wisdom" that was rampant in the 1970s, and the sort of unwarranted impositions that had made the dog's breakfast of sinology, yet at that time there was a significant corpus of scholarly research available to him concerning the early writings of India. Why did he take the time to mention Mesoamerica, an area of research still actively developed and hotly debated to this date, and yet ignore the sixteen hundred pound Ganesh in the room?
I think it would be very interesting to apply his notion of bicamerality as an analytical tool to see how well it fits with the evidence from these societies — perhaps even more significantly, how badly it doesn't fit.
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,370
Points: 7,185
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
leonAzul wrote:As an aside, there is an obvious lack of consideration of the evidence from China, India, Australia, and the various civilizations of Africa. It is all the more puzzling since there are extant societies in each of those areas with continuity to prehistoric societies that are available for anthropological study. While it is true that ancient Greek, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian societies would be more relevant to modern European societies and their derivatives, yet if Jaynes wished to make a case for bicameralism as something inherently human and not a special case, shouldn't he have taken these into consideration as well? Yes I think he should have as well, and have always been concerned with the lack of attention to these but, particularly to the far east. There has been evidence since at least the '80s that there are actual physiological differences in the brains of the people of the far east, as compared with western peoples, and most importantly in the language centers. This has major implications for Jaynes' theory. This was also the reason I started that thread about east and west gods back in September, that recently got bumped back up. Jaynes' lack of attention to the rise of "religion" in the east, had been one of my sticking points with his theory; however, after this review and discussion of it, I'm not much worried about it anymore. I never suspected that Jaynes origins notions were, or even could have been, right on the mark. Like we've said, it is the first attempt at a coherent scientific investigation into, what I think, very well could be the most difficult question we will ever ask. The major change in my appraisal of the assumptions/implications of the theory that seems to be taking shape is, that I may be coming to a point where I can drop a major objection to the notion that consciousness could actually be less than 10,000 years old. After all this is less than a blink of an eye in evolutionary time scales, and previously I could see no possible way for this to have happened, other than "little green men", or divine imposition. Actually in writing this I realize that I am past that point, and that as a result of this discussion now see it as a distinct possibility. Strict Jaynesian bicamerality I have huge doubts about; however, could the processes that Jaynes' identifies be "one of" the paths to consciousness that occurred for a major portion of the population of H.S. sapient? This proposition I still hold in question awaiting final arguments.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,370
Points: 7,185
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
Feb.26-Mar.4
Book Two
Chapter 3
pages 204 thru 222
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 2,116
Points: 6,355
Location: United States, FL
|
Epiphileon wrote:
Strict Jaynesian bicamerality I have huge doubts about; however, could the processes that Jaynes' identifies be "one of" the paths to consciousness that occurred for a major portion of the population of H.S. sapient? This proposition I still hold in question awaiting final arguments.
As long as we're "conjectualizing" here, I'm coming to a similar place. That Jaynes bases his claims not on genetic change but rather on existing tractability of the human brain makes it that much more plausible. Yet it also opens the possibility of concurrent modes of thought, or even cycles of consciousness-bicamerality-consciousness, and if these occurred prehistorically in a given place then there would be very little evidence to confirm or falsify this, especially considering the conservative role of tradition. I notice on the julianjaynes.org site that there has been some discussion if the oriental notion of shih and its relationship to Egyptian ka. From the little I know of shamanistic Taoism, that could be interesting reading, particularly if this were also compared/contrasted with shen. While we're on the subject of ka, I couldn't help but notice the similarities between it and certain animist traditions that refer to a "bon-anj" with two aspects: the ti-bon-anj and the gro-bon-anj, which also roughly correlate with shen and shih, as well as the ideas of ka as personality but also as immortal soul. That such roughly equivalent conceptions, all involved with divination and ancestor worship, should emerge independently is at the very least an interesting coincidence.
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 2,116
Points: 6,355
Location: United States, FL
|
Jaynes p. 221 (227) wrote:
Conclusion
This chapter must not be construed as presenting any evidence
about the origin of consciousness. That is the burden of several
ensuing chapters. My purpose in this chapter has been descrip-
tive and theoretical, to paint a picture of plausibility, of how and
why a huge alteration in human mentality could have occurred
toward the end of the second millennium B.C.
In summary, I have sketched out several factors at work in
the great transilience from the bicameral mind to consciousness:
(1) the weakening of the auditory by the advent of writing; (2)
the inherent fragility of hallucinatory control; (3) the unwork-
ableness of gods in the chaos of historical upheaval; (4) the
positing of internal cause in the observation of difference in
others; (5) the acquisition of narratization from epics; (6) the
survival value of deceit; and (7) a modicum of natural se-
lection.
This seems like a reasonable summary, so I shall quote it here and return with some particular questions. In general I find the idea that a great cultural transformation occurred during the second millennium BCE to be well-supported by the evidence, and that Jaynes is on to something when he asserts it has to do with language, the common perception of mental processes, and the relationship of the individual to society. Point (4), "the observation of difference in others," seems particularly well argued as a necessary consequence of economies based on trade with ever more alien cultures. As long as the shared experience is controllable, as it would be in tribal societies or city states, the thought patterns as "revealed by the gods" in the form of voices would rarely conflict, excepting of course for those suffering from brain pathology. As contrasting cultures with similar patterns come into contact with each other, it is only a matter of time before someone gets the idea that what is being revealed is the decisions made by human brains, and not something mysterious.
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 2,116
Points: 6,355
Location: United States, FL
|
Jaynes p 207 (213) wrote:
There is thus no middle ground in intertheocracy relations.
Admonitory voices echoing kings, viziers, parents, etc., are un-
likely to command individuals into acts of compromise. Even
today, our ideas of nobility are largely residues of bicameral
authority: it is not noble to whine, it is not noble to plead, it is not
noble to beg, even though these postures are really the most
moral of ways to settle differences. And hence the instability of
the bicameral world, and the fact that during the bicameral era
boundary relations would, I think, be more likely to end in all-out
friendship or all-out hostility than anything between these
extremes.
Nor is this the bottom of the matter. The smooth working of a
bicameral kingdom has to rest on its authoritarian hierarchy.
And once the priestly or secular hierarchy is disputed or upset,
its effects would be exaggerated in a way that in a police state
would not occur. Once cities become a certain size, as we have
already seen, the bicameral control must be extremely precari-
ous. The hierarchy of priests to sort out the various voices and
give them their recognitions must have become a major preoccu-
pation as bicameral cities grew in size. One jar to this balance of
human and hallucinated authority, and, like a house of cards, the
whole thing might collapse. As I have mentioned in both previ-
ous chapters, such theocracies occasionally did indeed suddenly
collapse without any known external cause.
This very fragility leads me to a different hypothesis from Jaynes's. I rather think it quite likely that the priests at the very least were conscious in the modern sense, and were sufficiently sophisticated to suppress such knowledge, whether for the common good, their own personal advantage, or some combination of these. In this scenario, the political ruler may or may not have been a knowing participant, perhaps on a need to know basis. I come to this conclusion based on the fact that all the so-called mystery schools and bodies of "esoteric" knowledge claim their origins in the growing theocracies of this epoch, and this seems to be borne out by archeological evidence.
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 2,116
Points: 6,355
Location: United States, FL
|
Jaynes pp 221-222 (227-228) wrote:
I would conclude by bringing up the question of the strictness
of all this. Did consciousness really come de novo into the world
only at this time? Is it not possible that certain individuals at
least might have been conscious in much earlier time? Possibly
yes. As individuals differ in mentality today, so in past ages it
might have been possible that one man alone, or more possibly a
cult or clique, began to develop a metaphored space with analog
selves. But such aberrant mentality in a bicameral theocracy
would, I think, be short-lived and scarcely what we mean by
consciousness today.
For reasons mentioned in my previous post, I think that Jaynes is overstating his case. It would make it much easier for him to demonstrate if such a clear cut separation of the two modes of thinking were to exist during historical time, but reality is not always so pliable—nor convenient.
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 9/9/2010
Posts: 909
Points: 2,642
Location: Australia
|
I am still lurking leon and appreciate your posting the individual sections of Jayne's, and, what your conclusions are. I am finding that, the more that appears, the more my belief in my earlier comments becomes firmer. I am trying to recall an ancient culture(s) where the priest, or equivalent, would conceal himself (or a cohort) behind some form of idol and the people would hear this voice seemingly emanating from a 'God'[being the idol]. My opinion on 'voices' telling people what to do has not changed, and, I still see more logic in it being just another person, albeit smarter, manipulating the masses for reasons of power(control), or for plain greed. History teaches us that to control the masses is an ambition attempted by many, in all cultures, going back as far as is possible to have been recorded. Your conclusions to Jaynes p 207 (213) appears to reinforce what I have been alluding to.  This from Jaynes p. 221 (227) (and I hope that I am being too selective of your comments and showing bias?) You wrote; As contrasting cultures with similar patterns come into contact with each other, it is only a matter of time before someone gets the idea that what is being revealed is the decisions made by human brains, and not something mysterious.
RULES ARE FOR THE OBEYENCE OF FOOLS AND FOR THE GUIDENCE OF WISE MEN
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 2,116
Points: 6,355
Location: United States, FL
|
Ray41 wrote:
I am trying to recall an ancient culture(s) where the priest, or equivalent, would conceal himself (or a cohort) behind some form of idol and the people would hear this voice seemingly emanating from a 'God'[being the idol].
I think I know what you are talking about, and I am trying to recall specific examples, but all that comes to mind right now is that scene in the movie The Wizard of Oz where he says, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."  Ray41 wrote:
My opinion on 'voices' telling people what to do has not changed, and, I still see more logic in it being just another person, albeit smarter, manipulating the masses for reasons of power(control), or for plain greed. History teaches us that to control the masses is an ambition attempted by many, in all cultures, going back as far as is possible to have been recorded.
I agree. In many ways sheer competition and the desire to maintain control of one's world is explanation enough for theocratic societies. What Jaynes offers is a more detailed explanation how this control was exerted over larger populations with such relative ease. The ventriloquist's tricks work precisely because of the near universal experience of commanding voices in times of stress, or so Jaynes argues. Perhaps too conveniently this accounts for the yearning for a reliable oracle for those who do not recognize the voices as the products of their own brain activity. This is where I get particularly skeptical, because it is almost too neat. It is something of a leap to assert that an often imitated artistic trope for inspiration — someone speaking in one's ear — has in fact a neurological explanation. Yet what could be more natural? Ray41 wrote:
This from Jaynes p. 221 (227) (and I hope that I am being too selective of your comments and showing bias?)
You wrote;
As contrasting cultures with similar patterns come into contact with each other, it is only a matter of time before someone gets the idea that what is being revealed is the decisions made by human brains, and not something mysterious.
No problem at all; it's a difference of opinion that makes a horse race fun.  Seriously, I say this not because I enjoy bickering or caviling, but rather because I appreciate the value of discussing things among people of differing biases for the way it can check any single bias from excluding something essential to understanding. At the very least such discussions give me the opportunity to confront my own biases and examine whether they are really working for me as I make the effort to articulate my response to the text. Your quoting of me does not seem like "cherry picking" or "quote mining" at all. Seeing it again, however, I think the word I was looking for was "mystical" instead of "mysterious," but perhaps that is a mere subtlety and would do little to alter where we share common ground and how we differ.
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,370
Points: 7,185
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
leonAzul wrote:
This seems like a reasonable summary, so I shall quote it here and return with some particular questions.
In general I find the idea that a great cultural transformation occurred during the second millennium BCE to be well-supported by the evidence, and that Jaynes is on to something when he asserts it has to do with language, the common perception of mental processes, and the relationship of the individual to society.
I agree, there is no doubt that this was a period of profound change, this is also the point, that I think, the rate of advancement in technology became non-linear.
Point (4), "the observation of difference in others," seems particularly well argued as a necessary consequence of economies based on trade with ever more alien cultures. As long as the shared experience is controllable, as it would be in tribal societies or city states, the thought patterns as "revealed by the gods" in the form of voices would rarely conflict, excepting of course for those suffering from brain pathology. As contrasting cultures with similar patterns come into contact with each other, it is only a matter of time before someone gets the idea that what is being revealed is the decisions made by human brains, and not something mysterious.
I seem to have trouble with this as a first step in awareness, too sophisticated, maybe. I think, maybe, a first step may have been more along the lines of ""I" know better than what the gods are saying." I do not think at this point in the evolution of mentality that atheism would have existed.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,370
Points: 7,185
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
leonAzul wrote:
This very fragility leads me to a different hypothesis from Jaynes's. I rather think it quite likely that the priests at the very least were conscious in the modern sense, and were sufficiently sophisticated to suppress such knowledge, whether for the common good, their own personal advantage, or some combination of these. In this scenario, the political ruler may or may not have been a knowing participant, perhaps on a need to know basis. I come to this conclusion based on the fact that all the so-called mystery schools and bodies of "esoteric" knowledge claim their origins in the growing theocracies of this epoch, and this seems to be borne out by archeological evidence.
Leon, I seem to have reason to disagree with your assessment here, it seems to me that at the advent of consciousness it would not have been capable of this level of sophistication. I do think you, and Ray, may be on to something about the authority figures practicing a level of deception regarding the messages delivered to the masses, what I wonder though, is whether, initially, they would have been aware of it, or even though their thoughts were being consciously originated, that they still thought they were being led by the gods.
The pool of potential knowledge here is certainly one of the murkier ones, in attempting to discuss the transition period to consciousness that is. This is where I think Jaynes has done a remarkable job, his theory is both consistent, demonstrates internal validity, and it leads to more useful questions.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 2,116
Points: 6,355
Location: United States, FL
|
Epiphileon wrote:leonAzul wrote:
Point (4), "the observation of difference in others," seems particularly well argued as a necessary consequence of economies based on trade with ever more alien cultures. As long as the shared experience is controllable, as it would be in tribal societies or city states, the thought patterns as "revealed by the gods" in the form of voices would rarely conflict, excepting of course for those suffering from brain pathology. As contrasting cultures with similar patterns come into contact with each other, it is only a matter of time before someone gets the idea that what is being revealed is the decisions made by human brains, and not something mysterious.
I seem to have trouble with this as a first step in awareness, too sophisticated, maybe. I think, maybe, a first step may have been more along the lines of ""I" know better than what the gods are saying." I do not think at this point in the evolution of mentality that atheism would have existed. Oddly enough, Jaynes himself anticipates my conjecture, and his analysis is similar to yours. Jaynes pp 221-222 (227-228) wrote:
I would conclude by bringing up the question of the strictness
of all this. Did consciousness really come de novo into the world
only at this time? Is it not possible that certain individuals at
least might have been conscious in much earlier time? Possibly
yes. As individuals differ in mentality today, so in past ages it
might have been possible that one man alone, or more possibly a
cult or clique, began to develop a metaphored space with analog
selves. But such aberrant mentality in a bicameral theocracy
would, I think, be short-lived and scarcely what we mean by
consciousness today.
The hazard of imposing contemporary conceptions onto ancient persons goes both ways. At either extreme, we could be guilty of assuming too much cleverness and sophistication, and we could be guilty of assuming that all of history is progressive and teleological. To be clear, I am not suggesting that Jaynes nor anyone involved in this discussion holds an opinion at either extreme. My conjecture is based on the assumption that there were a lot of incremental steps over the course of tens of thousands of years which involved the imitation of successful behavior. In the context of this thread, however, my analysis would be better elaborated in a separate thread on the origin of religion — and who could possibly have an opinion on that? As you (and Jaynes) say, it is a murky business, and I agree that Jaynes is to be commended for " coming in from the cold."
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 9/9/2010
Posts: 909
Points: 2,642
Location: Australia
|
Oops, maybe a poor choice of word here leon, but, when I posted this,I was agreeing. The word 'bias' pointed in the wrong direction!!! This from Jaynes p. 221 (227) (and I hope that I am being too selective of your comments and showing bias?)
You wrote;
As contrasting cultures with similar patterns come into contact with each other, it is only a matter of time before someone gets the idea that what is being revealed is the decisions made by human brains, and not something mysteriousI was actually in agreeance. This would be a natural transition following on from my comment; My opinion on 'voices' telling people what to do has not changed, and, I still see more logic in it being just another person, albeit smarter, manipulating the masses for reasons of power(control), or for plain greed. History teaches us that to control the masses is an ambition attempted by many, in all cultures, going back as far as is possible to have been recorded.If I was not in agreeance, I believe that I would then be contradicting myself.  ****************************************************************************************************************************** Epi wrote:
I seem to have trouble with this as a first step in awareness, too sophisticated, maybe. I think, maybe, a first step may have been more along the lines of ""I" know better than what the gods are saying." I do not think at this point in the evolution of mentality that atheism would have existed.This is assuming that "gods" were commanding through "voices". I have posted the definitions of megalomania( not for you, but for the lurkers!)  and to me it defines the probable mental state of the "priests", 'chiefs", etc. who supposedly heard these voices. This mental conditions just about covers all the attributes they would need to ensure their position in their community[including "insanity" which would have been seen as some form of "empowerment" from a higher (mystical)source. Somehow the name "Hitler" springs to mind.meg·a·lo·ma·ni·a (mg-l-mn-, -mny)
n.
1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.
megalomania [ˌmɛgələʊˈmeɪnɪə]
n
1. (Psychology) a mental illness characterized by delusions of grandeur, power, wealth, etc.
2. Informal a lust or craving for power
megalomania
1. Psychiatry. a form of mental illness marked by delusions of greatness, wealth, or power.
2. an obsession with doing extravagant or grand things. — megalomaniac, n. — megalomaniacal, adj.
See also: Grandeur
1. Medicine. a form of mental illness characterized by the unreasonable conviction in the patient of his own greatness, goodness, power, or wealth.
2. an obsession with extravagant or grand actions. — megalomaniac, n., adj. — megalomaniacal, adj.
See also: Insanity
ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. megalomania - a psychological state characterized by delusions of grandeur
delusions of grandeur - a delusion (common in paranoia) that you are much greater and more powerful and influential than you really are.
mental disease, mental illness, psychopathy - any disease of the mind; the psychological state of someone who has emotional or behavioral problems serious enough to require psychiatric intervention
RULES ARE FOR THE OBEYENCE OF FOOLS AND FOR THE GUIDENCE OF WISE MEN
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,370
Points: 7,185
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
Ray41 wrote:My opinion on 'voices' telling people what to do has not changed, and, I still see more logic in it being just another person, albeit smarter, manipulating the masses for reasons of power(control), or for plain greed. History teaches us that to control the masses is an ambition attempted by many, in all cultures, going back as far as is possible to have been recorded.
If I was not in agreeance, I believe that I would then be contradicting myself. Okay but, where did this a priori conscious person come from? And how did they obtain consciousness? Unless we want to attribute consciousness to some extra-ordinary causation, it evolved, what Jaynes proposes is a logically consistent evolutionary development of consciousness, we can not just pull conscious people from nowhere, and remember he makes a big case for everyone having heard the voices. Only later does it become the task of a specialized sub-group. Epi wrote:
I seem to have trouble with this as a first step in awareness, too sophisticated, maybe. I think, maybe, a first step may have been more along the lines of ""I" know better than what the gods are saying." I do not think at this point in the evolution of mentality that atheism would have existed.
This is assuming that "gods" were commanding through "voices".
I have posted the definitions of megalomania( not for you, but for the lurkers!) and to me it defines the probable mental state of the "priests", 'chiefs", etc. who supposedly heard these voices. This mental conditions just about covers all the attributes they would need to ensure their position in their community[including "insanity" which would have been seen as some form of "empowerment" from a higher (mystical)source.
Somehow the name "Hitler" springs to mind.I do not see any way that such a disorder could be occurring at the very dawn of consciousness. The whole notion of bicamerality is admittedly pretty novel, and if it were not for the recorded historical phenomenon of people hallucinating gods, and doing so as late as Joan of Ark, as well as some instances within modern Pentecostalism, providing evidence of authoritative and even adaptive commands being issued, I could dismiss it easily. So if you dismiss the notion of Gods speaking authoritatively to direct pre-concious people, how do you account for these phenomenon within an evolutionary paradigm?
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 9/9/2010
Posts: 909
Points: 2,642
Location: Australia
|
Jaynes pp 221-222 (227-228) wrote: I would conclude by bringing up the question of the strictness of all this. Did consciousness really come de novo into the world
only at this time? Is it not possible that certain individuals at
least might have been conscious in much earlier time? Possibly
yes. As individuals differ in mentality today, so in past ages it
might have been possible that one man alone, or more possibly a
cult or clique, began to develop a metaphored space with analog
selves. But such aberrant mentality in a bicameral theocracy would, I think, be short-lived and scarcely what we mean by consciousness today. I am not trying to be negative, but, even Jaynes seems to be doubting his own belief here, and, then appears to dismiss the possibility that "consciousness" is a product of "continuing evolution" by bringing back his theory of "bicameralism".
I could not help allowing myself a small smile when it was posted about Jayne's selective choice of reference as highlighted by leon's post;As an aside, there is an obvious lack of consideration of the evidence from China, India, Australia, and the various civilizations of Africa. It is all the more puzzling since there are extant societies in each of those areas with continuity to prehistoric societies that are available for anthropological study. While it is true that ancient Greek, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian societies would be more relevant to modern European societies and their derivatives, yet if Jaynes wished to make a case for bicameralism as something inherently human and not a special case, shouldn't he have taken these into consideration as well?I have raised this issue of isolation previously! This is the weakest link to anything that Jaynes postulates. Epi wrote:
The whole notion of bicamerality is admittedly pretty novel, and if it were not for the recorded historical phenomenon of people hallucinating gods, and doing so as late as Joan of Ark, as well as some instances within modern Pentecostalism, providing evidence of authoritative and even adaptive commands being issued, I could dismiss it easily. Does it not raise a question(or red flag) when we can actually name certain groups/organizations that "hear voices", almost as if this is indoctrinated as a belief. If a person is 'brainwashed' from an early age, then, they would "hear these voices" as this is what is "expected from them".Epi wrote;
So if you dismiss the notion of Gods speaking authoritatively to direct pre-concious people, how do you account for these phenomenon within an evolutionary paradigm? Interesting question Epi. While looking up some info on another topic, I ended up on the Catholic website and as I was casting my eyes over the page I noticed a section which ask; Do we have eyes because we needed them, or, because we needed them, they evolved?(obviously an argument about evolution which we could easily substitute 'eyes' for 'consciousness' ).
Not being facetious, I can only answer by asking myself whether I am a duck, or, a rabbit, and what was Jaynes?  (Kuhn used the duck-rabbit optical illusion to demonstrate the way in which a paradigm shift could cause one to see the same information in an entirely different way.)
RULES ARE FOR THE OBEYENCE OF FOOLS AND FOR THE GUIDENCE OF WISE MEN
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 2,116
Points: 6,355
Location: United States, FL
|
Epiphileon wrote:Ray41 wrote:
Somehow the name "Hitler" springs to mind.
I do not see any way that such a disorder could be occurring at the very dawn of consciousness. A better example would be Gilgamesh, who exhibits all the behaviors of a self-conscious and self-determined megalomaniac, inflicting his will on his subjects who are troubled yet dare not resist him from their own inability to conceive of such a world view, and finally seeking out the counsel of Utnapishtim in an attempt to hear the voices that everyone else required him to hear. Epiphileon wrote:
So if you dismiss the notion of Gods speaking authoritatively to direct pre-concious people, how do you account for these phenomenon within an evolutionary paradigm?
It is similar to the way some people think that there is a problem with evolutionary theory because there is evidence that Neanderthals and modern humans co-existed for a very long time. (I'm quite sure that you, Epi, are not "some people," I am merely drawing a parallel between the two arguments.) Evolutionary theory does not predict a consistent, progressive linear development. Quite the contrary, in the course of natural selection, similar environments will select for similar successful adaptations, and at any given time there can be many many variations and species that may or may not share a comparatively recent common ancestor. This is reflected in the emerging differences between traditional taxonomy, which is more concerned with systematically and uniquely labeling species and varieties, and cladistics, which more specifically seeks to organize those species genetically by inferred ancestry. The branches or clades which emerge from the latter system of organization reveal interesting differences from the classic taxonomical hierarchy, which did assume a more or less linear development towards greater complexity.
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,370
Points: 7,185
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
leonAzul wrote:Epiphileon wrote:
So if you dismiss the notion of Gods speaking authoritatively to direct pre-concious people, how do you account for these phenomenon within an evolutionary paradigm?
Evolutionary theory does not predict a consistent, progressive linear development. Quite the contrary, in the course of natural selection, similar environments will select for similar successful adaptations, and at any given time there can be many many variations and species that may or may not share a comparatively recent common ancestor. This is reflected in the emerging differences between traditional taxonomy, which is more concerned with systematically and uniquely labeling species and varieties, and cladistics, which more specifically seeks to organize those species genetically by inferred ancestry. The branches or clades which emerge from the latter system of organization reveal interesting differences from the classic taxonomical hierarchy, which did assume a more or less linear development towards greater complexity. Yes I most certainly poorly phrased that question, I had no intention of presenting that possible interpretation, as will become evident when I post the reply I'm working on in another tab right now. \ Question, does Jaynes somewhere categorically state he thinks his is a universal theory? This may be where some of that personal bias comes in, as I have either missed that entirely, or failed to pick up on it if it is implied, since I have long suspected there may have been different possibilities.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 2,116
Points: 6,355
Location: United States, FL
|
Epiphileon wrote:
Question, does Jaynes somewhere categorically state he thinks his is a universal theory? This may be where some of that personal bias comes in, as I have either missed that entirely, or failed to pick up on it if it is implied, since I have long suspected there may have been different possibilities.
Unless I've missed it too, he hasn't in so many words. Nor has he made what could be taken as a formal postulation of a theory. Yet informally he has referred to his thesis as a possible theory several times, he cites genetically determined neural capacities which are mostly invariant across cultures, and he has cited examples in places other than those surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, so until he makes more specific claims and defines the scope of a theory, it is reasonable to infer that he intends this to apply to all of humankind to some degree.
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,370
Points: 7,185
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
Ray41 wrote:As an aside, there is an obvious lack of consideration of the evidence from China, India, Australia, and the various civilizations of Africa. It is all the more puzzling since there are extant societies in each of those areas with continuity to prehistoric societies that are available for anthropological study. While it is true that ancient Greek, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian societies would be more relevant to modern European societies and their derivatives, yet if Jaynes wished to make a case for bicameralism as something inherently human and not a special case, shouldn't he have taken these into consideration as well?I have raised this issue of isolation previously! This is the weakest link to anything that Jaynes postulates. Perhaps he would have if he had lived long enough, have you considered how much time it would have taken to conduct the amount of research Jaynes had to do, to write this book? Consider as well this is no paradigm shift, since there was no paradigm in this area, it is ground breaking work, ground breaking work is seldom exhaustive. Yes it is a weak point, but I do not think Jaynes can be faulted for not covering every possible culture in which consciousness arose. Another point to consider is that consciousness did not necessarily evolve at the same time, nor is there any reason to think that it came about in the same way, in all places. Most certainly this is not, "the weakest link in anything Jaynes postulates," let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Personally I strongly suspect, that it is very likely, that consciousness arose by different mechanisms in the far east. This was the reason I posted "Gods? East vs West" thread is September of last year. The unstated goal of that thread was to discover whether eastern religions were based on hallucinated voices or not. Anyway Ray, sorry if the above seems a bit strident, please do not take it that way, even though I do not completely agree with Jaynes, and still hold the entire notion in question, I can tend to be a bit defensive of him, I think he got a raw deal from the professional community at the time this book was released, and a lot of very ill considered criticism at the time. Epi wrote:
The whole notion of bicamerality is admittedly pretty novel, and if it were not for the recorded historical phenomenon of people hallucinating gods, and doing so as late as Joan of Ark, as well as some instances within modern Pentecostalism, providing evidence of authoritative and even adaptive commands being issued, I could dismiss it easily. Does it not raise a question(or red flag) when we can actually name certain groups/organizations that "hear voices", almost as if this is indoctrinated as a belief. If a person is 'brainwashed' from an early age, then, they would "hear these voices" as this is what is "expected from them".No I do not think it does, first of all this does not seem apply in the historical cases. Secondly as far as modern manifestations I have personally witnessed (as much as one can witness the internal events of another) some of these, and questioned them quite thoroughly at the time. From the time I was 22 until I was 29 I was thoroughly convinced of the validity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as revealed in, what I considered at the time, the word of God, the Bible. My conversion to that belief system occurred in Yosemite National Park, and through the agency of reading the Bible, not as the result of evangelism on the part of anyone else. Subsequently I read the book a number of times, and soon sought out involvement in a local Bible study. Over the next two years I had read the complete works of Martin Luther, much of John Calvin, a host of other reformation era and after theologians, and had a copy of the New Testament in the original languages, and half a dozen books that allowed me to do word for word studies of the text, and started teaching Bible studies. By the end of the next year I was a full time minister of the mission in Yosemite, and it soon became a self supporting congregation. I was entirely convinced of Martin Luther's original battle cry, " sola scriptura" and pursued understanding the doctrine of the Bible with ardent zeal. Sorry for the lengthy qualification, I felt it necessary to communicate just how thoroughly I looked into this issue, for you see one of the great debates in modern evangelical Christianity is whether the "gifts of the Spirit" are still active in the modern church. I visited a number of churches on the pro side of the issue, i.e. Pentecostal, and Charismatic churches, and long before I'd even heard of Jayne's I was seriously investigating the phenomenon of "hearing voices", many of the people I talked to were adult converts to Christianity, so no childhood indoctrination, some were relatively recent converts, and none of them could have been considered to have been subjected to the severity of brainwashing techniques necessary to produce hallucinations. You might suspect that one of my first questions would be what these people meant by "hearing", and it turned out that many were experiencing no such thing at all, but there were a few that convinced me they were hearing voices in the same manner that they heard me talking to them. Back then I had other explanations for this; however, with reference to this discussion, what else could this be, but a latent ability of the brain? And where could latent abilities have come from other than evolutionary history? Besides all that I think that brainwashing to the extant necessary for modern humans to be hallucinating would result in psychosis, and not in happy, productive, members of the community. Epi wrote;
So if you dismiss the notion of Gods speaking authoritatively to direct pre-concious people, how do you account for these phenomenon within an evolutionary paradigm? Interesting question Epi. While looking up some info on another topic, I ended up on the Catholic website and as I was casting my eyes over the page I noticed a section which ask; Do we have eyes because we needed them, or, because we needed them, they evolved?(obviously an argument about evolution which we could easily substitute 'eyes' for 'consciousness' ).Neither, that question in either form, seems to me to be invalid, both seem to imply design, photo-sensory apparatus evolved because they were evolutionarily stable. Consciousness during a period when bicamerality was evolutionarily stable would have had no adaptive value, however, if there were a breakdown in the stability of bicameral society, then consciousness becomes adaptive. However; after reading Leon's post, I see that I very badly phrased that question, leaving it open to implications I by no means intended. Certainly there may have been other ways that consciousness evolved, but there still must be an accounting for these voices, I don't see the notion that they were actually heard as dismissible. Thanks for posting Ray, I appreciate your perspective.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 2,116
Points: 6,355
Location: United States, FL
|
Epiphileon wrote:Consciousness during a period when bicamerality was evolutionarily stable would have had no adaptive value, however, if there were a breakdown in the stability of bicameral society, then consciousness becomes adaptive. This is where I respectfully disagree. There is adaptive value in the leadership reserving the development of consciousness through privileged education and initiation rites that would have been withheld from the general population for the sake of social order as any personal advantage. It is attested through oral traditions as early as in tribal societies where the shamans emerge from ancestral lines and are given special treatment from childhood. As an admittedly lame analogy from the animal kingdom, what distinguishes the queen bee from the rest of the hive is not genetic, but rather the special food it is given as a larva. What I consider to be a more reasonable interpretation is that the inner space of consciousness had a history of co-existence with bicamerality, and that a period of social upheaval with several causes destabilized bicameralism and allowed the cultivation of consciousness to be more widely diffused and ultimately dominant. But please see below. Epiphileon wrote:However; after reading Leon's post, I see that I very badly phrased that question, leaving it open to implications I by no means intended. Certainly there may have been other ways that consciousness evolved, but there still must be an accounting for these voices, I don't see the notion that they were actually heard as dismissible. That's partially my fault: Looking back at my reply, I never did directly address the question. But first, the common ground. I agree that Jaynes has made a very strong case that the phenomenon of auditory events caused by brain activity and misinterpreted as supernatural in origin is very likely the source of the gods. I realize that is a bit wordy, but it is the best way I can think of for the moment to avoid the pitfalls of such emotionally charged words as "hallucinations" or "imaginary voices". It is most certainly not intended as a pretense to erudition nor to confer the mantle of authority upon my feeble words.  Jaynes has also made it clear that such a technique of introspection could not have been developed by falling out of a tree. It requires the generations of economic and social stability in response to both recurring and catastrophic environmental challenges that civilization could provide. It would involve many generations of observation and practice to develop and refine both the technique itself and the ability to share it with others. In this sense, bicameralism was the precursor for consciousness because the stability it provided facilitated the development of consciousness. It is the claim that the breakdown of bicameralism was the cause of introspective consciousness that I find weakly supported. Precedence does not necessarily imply causality. Instead, I interpret that breakdown as the cause for the ascendance of introspective consciousness as the dominant point of view, such that it is currently considered the preeminent attribute that distinguishes human beings from the other animals, and indeed among humans themselves. This interpretation would also support Jaynes's claim that language is a necessary precursor to introspective consciousness. Without the pre-existence of language, the events in the brain would have had no significance as imperatives, bicameralism's role in the interpretation of brain activity and social cohesion would be nil, and there would be no void for introspective consciousness to fill.
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,370
Points: 7,185
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
Jaynes p208 wrote:The Weakening of Divine Authority with Writing
These limitations of gods were both relieved and greatly
exacerbated in the second millennium B.C. by the success of
writing. On the one hand, writing could allow a civil structure
such as that of Hammurabi to remain stable. But, on the other, it
was gradually eroding the auditory authority of the bicameral
mind. More and more, the accountings and messages of govern-
ment were placed in cuneiform tablets particularly. Whole li-
braries of them are still being discovered. Letters of officials
became a commonplace. By 1500 B.C., even miners high in the
rocky wastes of Sinai incised their names and their relationships
to the goddess of the mine on its walls. 3
The input to the divine hallucinatory aspect of the bicameral
mind was auditory. It used cortical areas more closely connected
to the auditory parts of the brain. And once the word of god was
silent, written on dumb clay tablets or incised into speechless
stone, the god's commands or the king's directives could be
turned to or avoided by one's own efforts in a way that auditory
hallucinations never could be. The word of a god had a con-
trollable location rather than an ubiquitous power with immediate
obedience. This is extremely important. I'm still working on this, but I think this is even huger than Jaynes' "extremely important", and may have been the primary mechanism in driving the advent of consciousness. First of all there is the involvement of much more of the brain in the activity, some of these areas are the primary areas of spatialization, and finally the words must be repeated somewhere internally in order to be comprehended. Jaynes thinks that they would merely be auditory hallucinations in the voice of the gods but, what if the message was not something this persons god would have said, or not said in the accustomed style? What if the message was from a source the individual was entirely unfamiliar with. I don't have this entirely straight in my own mind yet but, wanted to get in in here for possible future reference.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,370
Points: 7,185
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
leonAzul wrote:Epiphileon wrote:Consciousness during a period when bicamerality was evolutionarily stable would have had no adaptive value, however, if there were a breakdown in the stability of bicameral society, then consciousness becomes adaptive. This is where I respectfully disagree. There is adaptive value in the leadership reserving the development of consciousness through privileged education and initiation rites that would have been withheld from the general population for the sake of social order as any personal advantage. It is attested through oral traditions as early as in tribal societies where the shamans emerge from ancestral lines and are given special treatment from childhood. As an admittedly lame analogy from the animal kingdom, what distinguishes the queen bee from the rest of the hive is not genetic, but rather the special food it is given as a larva. What I consider to be a more reasonable interpretation is that the inner space of consciousness had a history of co-existence with bicamerality, and that a period of social upheaval with several causes destabilized bicameralism and allowed the cultivation of consciousness to be more widely diffused and ultimately dominant. But please see below. I see your point, and it certainly has the potential to be valid; however, I'm not quite willing to adopt it, as is, yet. I also am a bit dismayed at how sloppy I'm getting in my old age, or perhaps it is just being out of practice at this level of discourse, what I should have said, as it was what I was thinking, is that I doubt the evolutionary stability of consciousness during the height of the bicameral period, Jaynes alluded to this as well, but I had other reasons. It would seem to me that anyone who did not hear the voices would be subject to severe discrimination, and certainly would have difficulty obtaining a mate. My primary objection to Ray's point however was that he seemed to be saying that there was never a bicameral hierarchy within developing societies, that I do not see as supportable; however this type of thing does definitely show up during the breakdown of bicamerality and is strongly evidenced in the Old Testament. Jaynes has also made it clear that such a technique of introspection could not have been developed by falling out of a tree. It requires the generations of economic and social stability in response to both recurring and catastrophic environmental challenges that civilization could provide. It would involve many generations of observation and practice to develop and refine both the technique itself and the ability to share it with others. In this sense, bicameralism was the precursor for consciousness because the stability it provided facilitated the development of consciousness. This I currently find entirely questionable, but that is probably because I am currently giving provisional assent to the notion that the dawn of consciousness represented a threshold event, or tipping point, in the perceptual space of the mind. This position is by no means solidified as it is relatively new to my thinkingIt is the claim that the breakdown of bicameralism was the cause of introspective consciousness that I find weakly supported. Precedence does not necessarily imply causality. Instead, I interpret that breakdown as the cause for the ascendance of introspective consciousness as the dominant point of view, such that it is currently considered the preeminent attribute that distinguishes human beings from the other animals, and indeed among humans themselves. This interpretation would also support Jaynes's claim that language is a necessary precursor to introspective consciousness. Without the pre-existence of language, the events in the brain would have had no significance as imperatives, bicameralism's role in the interpretation of brain activity and social cohesion would be nil, and there would be no void for introspective consciousness to fill. I agree that the breakdown could in no way have been a sufficient condition, for the rise of consciousness, whether it was even a necessary condition, is arguable, and I would lean toward discardable. I think writing (see post above), and environmental variability outstripping the availability of pat answers based purely or prior experience, were the major causation.
Well I have to jet back to work, so this is going up without review, if I missed something let me know.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,370
Points: 7,185
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
Mar.5-Mar.11
Book Two
Chapter 4
pages 223 thru 254
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 9/9/2010
Posts: 909
Points: 2,642
Location: Australia
|
Epi, RE: your post in the other thread where you mention "consciousness" as being taboo as no one appears to be researching this. Yesterday I was surfing for info on another topic and ended up following links that lead me to some excellent research articles. I was about to bookmark the page when the net dropped out. I have tried backtracking but am finding it impossible to find again. The research was recent(ongoing) and from the content, was still a work in process. *************************************************************************************************************** I will openly admit that my level of understanding is,at times, not up to speed on a lot of the knowledge needed to discuss "consciousness".  But, Q and A seems to work for me. To clarify some points, I would like to pose some questions. Does Jayne's theory hold up if there are no gods?[IE: the voices were from 'within'? Similar to me saying to myself "I need to mow the lawn"] Are the people, who, still profess to hear voices, 'bicameral'? (The reason I ask is that it does appear that people who profess to hear these 'voices' are all active within a church/religious groups, and, this could be the sole reason, and, have no connection to 'bicameralism' or 'latent ability of the brain'). There are hundreds of languages and dialects in the world, so, does this god speak all the languages, or, are there hundreds of gods? In order to make sense of what these people hear, and to record it, whether it be with symbols on rock, etc. They would need language in order to hear, interpret, and record? They would also need to 'hear the voice' in 'their language'. (I was watching a foreign news broadcast from ,at a guess, one of the Slav countries. They were reporting on the huge snowfalls, which where being projected on the TV, and I could almost follow what they were saying by linking it to what what I was seeing. If I shut my eyes, what I was hearing was gobbledygook, had no meaning, no context, and I would definitely be unable to descriptively pass on what was said in any form at all ).If I may quote you; many of the people I talked to were adult converts to Christianity, so no childhood indoctrination, some were relatively recent converts, and none of them could have been considered to have been subjected to the severity of brainwashing techniques necessary to produce hallucinations. You might suspect that one of my first questions would be what these people meant by "hearing", and it turned out that many were experiencing no such thing at all, but there were a few that convinced me they were hearing voices in the same manner that they heard me talking to them. Back then I had other explanations for this; however, with reference to this discussion, what else could this be, but a latent ability of the brain? And where could latent abilities have come from other than evolutionary history?So, they were hearing voices in modern AE? Did/would any of them have experienced 'voices' before joining the church?(just a question, not a verbal trap)In order to use the Bible for references,re: voices, a person would have to believe in the existence of the 'Living God'? So, back to the first question, Is Jayne's theory dependant on there being 'living gods [not imagined or false, or idols] capable of speaking to them'? We can agree to disagree without losing sight of seeking the Origin of Consciousness, I am not anti-Jayne, more a pain in the a***e!
RULES ARE FOR THE OBEYENCE OF FOOLS AND FOR THE GUIDENCE OF WISE MEN
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 2,116
Points: 6,355
Location: United States, FL
|
Ray41 wrote:
Does Jayne's theory hold up if there are no gods?[IE: the voices were from 'within'? Similar to me saying to myself "I need to mow the lawn"]
Speaking for myself, it could. Jaynes's notion of bicamerality doesn't depend on the existence of gods, but the historical worship of gods is one of many observations that led to his conclusions. In other words, if pantheism had never occurred, there would be no need for a theory to explain it, yet there would still be the voices. As far as I am concerned, this special application of bicameralism is something of a side issue, despite it being the main thesis of Jaynes's book. It is only of interest to me for how it could validate Jaynes's attempts to create a framework for a truly scientific investigation of consciousness, instead of the philosophical treatment it had received. Ray41 wrote:
Are the people, who, still profess to hear voices, 'bicameral'?
(The reason I ask is that it does appear that people who profess to hear these 'voices' are all active within a church/religious groups, and, this could be the sole reason, and, have no connection to 'bicameralism' or 'latent ability of the brain').
As I do a little digging into some of the sources which Jaynes cites and some of the more recent research in the field, I am coming to appreciate that Jaynes is using the word "bicameral" in a special sense. As a matter of anatomy, all healthy human brains can be described as bicameral, both in structure and in function. To most scientists this refers only to the symmetrical form and the relative independence of the lateral sides of the brain. You have quite correctly noted that there is considerably more meaning added when Jaynes uses the term by putting "bicameral" in quotes. For Jaynes this includes the added claim that one side is optimized for external expression and linear processing, while the other for internal representation and "spatial" processing. The preconscious "bicameral" person becomes aware of their decisions when the minor side "talks" to the major. This is perceived as a voice as if it were spoken by another person at some indeterminate location. There are people who hear commanding voices who are not members of a congregation; Epiphelion was only commenting on his experience with that subset. My opinion is that so-called automatic behavior, such as parasomnias (walking, talking, eating etc. during sleep), drug-induced "blackouts" (especially alcohol), amnesia, etc. are all evidence of a pre-consciousness that might be very close to what Jaynes means by "bicameral". This suggests to me that it is quite possible for both modes to co-exist, sometimes sequentially in the same person. Ray41 wrote:
There are hundreds of languages and dialects in the world, so, does this god speak all the languages, or, are there hundreds of gods?
Yes.
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,370
Points: 7,185
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
Ray41 wrote:Epi, RE: your post in the other thread where you mention "consciousness" as being taboo as no one appears to be researching this. Yesterday I was surfing for info on another topic and ended up following links that lead me to some excellent research articles. I was about to bookmark the page when the net dropped out. I have tried backtracking but am finding it impossible to find again. The research was recent(ongoing) and from the content, was still a work in process. Yes I know Ray, in fact depending on what you want to call research there is a plethora of investigations going on, I was specifically referring to the question of origin. I do not know what the prevailing attitude is right now in psychology, they may have finally come around; however, as there are no immediate commercial applications for such research I am sure it is still horribly underfunded, and not an easy area to obtain grant money for. The situation has vastly improved over the last 30 years, although four of the six books I've obtained over the last year or so, are still regarded as philosophy. One shining line of rigorous scientific investigation that has been going on since the '70s is that which Gerald Edelman is associated with. He has written several books that do not require a technical understanding of neuroscience in order to read, "general audience including Bright Air, Brilliant Fire (1992), A Universe of Consciousness (2001, with Giulio Tononi), Wider than the Sky (2004) and Second Nature: Brain Science and Human Knowledge (2007)." From Wikipedia article, Gerald Edelman *************************************************************************************************************** I will openly admit that my level of understanding is,at times, not up to speed on a lot of the knowledge needed to discuss "consciousness". But, Q and A seems to work for me. To clarify some points, I would like to pose some questions. Does Jayne's theory hold up if there are no gods?[IE: the voices were from 'within'? Similar to me saying to myself "I need to mow the lawn"] Jaynes does not acknowledge any type of reality to the gods other than the voices generated from within.Are the people, who, still profess to hear voices, 'bicameral'? (The reason I ask is that it does appear that people who profess to hear these 'voices' are all active within a church/religious groups, and, this could be the sole reason, and, have no connection to 'bicameralism' or 'latent ability of the brain'). I doubt you will find any fully bicameral people in the general population, there may, please note the qualifier, "may" be some purely bicameral people, labeled schizophrenic, and institutionalized, I don't know, Jaynes claims that schizophrenia is a pathological vestige of bicamerality.There are hundreds of languages and dialects in the world, so, does this god speak all the languages, or, are there hundreds of gods? In a bicameral mind the voice would be heard in the language that person understands.If I may quote you; many of the people I talked to were adult converts to Christianity, so no childhood indoctrination, some were relatively recent converts, and none of them could have been considered to have been subjected to the severity of brainwashing techniques necessary to produce hallucinations. You might suspect that one of my first questions would be what these people meant by "hearing", and it turned out that many were experiencing no such thing at all, but there were a few that convinced me they were hearing voices in the same manner that they heard me talking to them. Back then I had other explanations for this; however, with reference to this discussion, what else could this be, but a latent ability of the brain? And where could latent abilities have come from other than evolutionary history?So, they were hearing voices in modern AE? Did/would any of them have experienced 'voices' before joining the church?(just a question, not a verbal trap)Yes some of them heard God in English, these however were few as I said, there is another far more bizarre practice in these churches known as speaking in tongues, which is nothing like the voices Jaynes talks about, nor anything like that referenced in the Bible.In order to use the Bible for references,re: voices, a person would have to believe in the existence of the 'Living God'? No, not at all, I use the Bible as a historic record, and do not believe in a metaphysical god of any type. I'm not really sure what you're asking there, people who believe in the Bible, and here a voice telling them things consistent with their understanding of Biblical doctrine, do believe in a living god, but for that matter there are many who never hear any voice and believe. So, back to the first question, Is Jayne's theory dependant on there being 'living gods [not imagined or false, or idols] capable of speaking to them'? No, in my opinion it is just the opposite, it depends on there being no external gods.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 9/9/2010
Posts: 909
Points: 2,642
Location: Australia
|
Thank you leon for clarifying those points.I was sensing that Jayne's use of "bicameral" was different to what I would perceive to be the "exact" meaning, and it was getting in the way (misleading?). Re: my last question. Ray41 wrote: There are hundreds of languages and dialects in the world, so, does this god speak all the languages, or, are there hundreds of gods? And your reply; Yes. I should have realised that by asking an 'almost' facetious (tongue in cheek?) question, I should have expected to get a fitting reply. ******************************************************************************************************************** After posting this I see that Epi has posted so thank you also.I still have the chance to edit so will try to address this point; In order to use the Bible for references,re: voices, a person would have to believe in the existence of the 'Living God'?No, not at all, I use the Bible as a historic record, and do not believe in a metaphysical god of any type. I'm not really sure what you're asking there, people who believe in the Bible, and here a voice telling them things consistent with their understanding of Biblical doctrine, do believe in a living god, but for that matter there are many who never hear any voice and believe.The reason that I ask this question is that in Exodus, for a brief example, Moses approached the burning bush and the voice of God spoke to him. This would have to require faith/belief to be taken as 'gospel' as there is no physical proof to substantiate that this actually occurred, or, that was exactly what the sequence of events/wording was. I, personally, am reluctant to classify this as being historical, which, for me, would eliminate it as a source for reference.
RULES ARE FOR THE OBEYENCE OF FOOLS AND FOR THE GUIDENCE OF WISE MEN
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,370
Points: 7,185
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
Ray41 wrote: In order to use the Bible for references,re: voices, a person would have to believe in the existence of the 'Living God'?No, not at all, I use the Bible as a historic record, and do not believe in a metaphysical god of any type. I'm not really sure what you're asking there, people who believe in the Bible, and here a voice telling them things consistent with their understanding of Biblical doctrine, do believe in a living god, but for that matter there are many who never hear any voice and believe.The reason that I ask this question is that in Exodus, for a brief example, Moses approached the burning bush and the voice of God spoke to him. This would have to require faith/belief to be taken as 'gospel' as there is no physical proof to substantiate that this actually occurred, or, that was exactly what the sequence of events/wording was. I, personally, am reluctant to classify this as being historical, which, for me, would eliminate it as a source for reference. Okay what I should have said was I view the Bible as a useful psycho-archaeological document, not as a historically accurate account of events. There is sufficient evidence to give credence to the notion that the Old Testament was largely written by ancient Hebrews. Given that the hearing of voices is a phenomenon that can be traced throughout history, I do not see it as any great leap of faith to view the accounts in the Old Testament, as useful accounts in discussing the psychology of the time.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 2,116
Points: 6,355
Location: United States, FL
|
Ray41 wrote:The reason that I ask this question is that in Exodus, for a brief example, Moses approached the burning bush and the voice of God spoke to him. This would have to require faith/belief to be taken as 'gospel' as there is no physical proof to substantiate that this actually occurred, or, that was exactly what the sequence of events/wording was. I, personally, am reluctant to classify this as being historical, which, for me, would eliminate it as a source for reference. At the risk of digressing too far from the original goal of this thread, the Bible can still be regarded as historical in the sense that it is a record of reported experiences, which can in turn be regarded as historical events in their own right — particularly as far as they have an impact on a society. Jaynes would explain this as evidence of the transition from reverence for the "Voice of God," as experienced directly and personally, to reverence for the "Word of God," as codified in writing. A Person of the Book would of course interpret this as a refinement in humankind's understanding of God's Will as revealed in the Bible, yet even the staunchest atheist can appreciate this as a milestone in moral thinking with roots in earlier naïve perceptions.
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 2,116
Points: 6,355
Location: United States, FL
|
Book II Chapter 4 A Change of Mind in Mesopotamia Jaynes p 226 (232) wrote:
The mighty themes of the religions of the world are here
sounded for the first time. Why have the gods left us? Like
friends who depart from us, they must be offended. Our misfor-
tunes are our punishments for our offenses. We go down on our
knees, begging to be forgiven. And then find redemption in some
return of the word of a god. These aspects of present-day religion
find an explanation in the theory of the bicameral mind and its
breakdown during this period.
That's this chapter in a nutshell. He includes some ways that his notion of the breakdown of bicameralism correlates to the emergence of prayer, angels, demons, and the association of the sky with heaven. He then describes various categories of divination — omens, sortilege, augury, spontaneous — as having emerged become more prevalent during this time as alternatives to the guidance from the gods as directly perceived voices. Finally, he notes literary examples of changes in style among comparable letters and inscriptions that indicate a decidedly shifting point of view during the time from the second millennium BCE to the first. If you agree with the theses, I find his interpretations and elaborations are mostly consistent and reasonable. What I would like to add is several links to online editions of some of the same translations he discusses. Certainly not on such short notice, but perhaps in another thread we could refer to these for further discussion, particularly with regard to his interpretations. Jaynes p 226 (232) wrote:
The same dominant theme of lost gods cries out to us from the
tablets known as The Babylonian Theodicy.2
Babylonian Theodicy - LambertJaynes p 235 (241) wrote:
Similarly, the Ziggurat of Neo-Babylon, the Biblical Tower of
Babel, was no god’s house as in the truly bicameral age, but a
heavenly landing for the now celestialized gods. Built in the
seventh and sixth centuries B.C., it soared 300 feet high, again
with seven stages, pinnacling in a brilliant blue-glazed temple for
Marduk. Its very name indicates this use: E-temen-an-ki, temple
(E) of the receiving platform (temen) between heaven (an) and
earth (ki).10 The otherwise senseless passage of Genesis (11:2-
9) is certainly a rewrite of some Neo-Babylonian legend of just
such a landing by Yahweh who in the company of other gods
“come down to see the city and the tower,” and thereupon “con-
found their language that they may not understand one another’s
speech.” The latter may be a narratization of the garbling of hal-
lucinated voices in their decline.
10
For my translation of temen and possible alternatives, see James B. Nies’ glos-
sary in Ur Dynasty Tablets (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1920), p. 171.
'TE' glossary entryUr dynasty tabletsThis last link is to a PDF version of the translation by Nies that is just over 18 MB large. It has no bookmarks nor searchable text, but if you are interested in getting a closer look at it off-line, it might be useful. Ur Dynasty Tablets - Nies (PDF ~18.1 MB)
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,370
Points: 7,185
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
leonAzul wrote:
He includes some ways that his notion of the breakdown of bicameralism correlates to the emergence of prayer, angels, demons, and the association of the sky with heaven.
He then describes various categories of divination — omens, sortilege, augury, spontaneous — as having emerged become more prevalent during this time as alternatives to the guidance from the gods as directly perceived voices.
Finally, he notes literary examples of changes in style among comparable letters and inscriptions that indicate a decidedly shifting point of view during the time from the second millennium BCE to the first.
If you agree with the theses, I find his interpretations and elaborations are mostly consistent and reasonable.
I entirely agree with this, I do wonder how many aspects have to appear "consistent and reasonable" though, before his idea becomes compelling. I think what is becoming obvious though, is that no theory of origins on this issue will ever be able to rise above the level of merely compelling.
Also I don't know if you meant that one would have to agree with all of Jayne's hypothesis for the points in this chapter to be reasonable, but to my mind it seems, as I stated earlier, apart from the issue of the breakdown of the bicameral mind, being the reason for the transition, that there is good reason to entertain the rest of what he is calling the "witness of history' as being evidence of the origins, and evolution of religions, as well as the evolution of consciousness.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,370
Points: 7,185
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
Mar.11-Mar.18
Book Two
Chapter 5
The Intellectual Consciousness of Greece
pages 255 thru ...
... sorry folks but this chapter seems a bit long, let's see how it goes, seems there may be some provocative points raised.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 2,116
Points: 6,355
Location: United States, FL
|
Epiphileon wrote:
…I do wonder how many aspects have to appear "consistent and reasonable" though, before his idea becomes compelling. I think what is becoming obvious though, is that no theory of origins on this issue will ever be able to rise above the level of merely compelling.
The metaphor of the "voice of reason" is so pervasive as to verge on the trite and trivial. And yet, there it is: the sixteen hundred pound Ganesh in the room.
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige
|
|
|
Guest |