The Bicameral Mind

[Obbe]

I have recently started reading "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes. I find the subject extremely interesting and highly related to certain conceptions of God and the origins of religion. Julian suggests consciousness developed in humans as recently as only 3000 years ago. That it developed out of language and allegory, and that consciousness itself is an allegory of the physical world.

From page 74-75:

[After speaking on the Iliad and of Greek Gods]

The [Greek] gods are what we now call hallucinations. Usually they are only seen or heard by the particular heroes they are speaking to. Sometimes they come in mists or out of the gray sea or a river, or from the sky, suggesting visual auras preceding them. But at other times, they simply occur. Usually they come as themselves, commonly as mere voices, but sometimes as other people related to the hero.

Apollo's relation to Hector is particularly interesting in this regard. In Book 16, Apollo come to Hector as his maternal uncle; then in Book 17 as one of his allied leaders; and then later in the same book as his dearest friend from abroad. The denouement of the whole epic comes when it is Athene who, after telling Achilles to kill Hector, then comes to Hector as his dearest brother, Deiphobus. Trusting in him as his second, Hector challenges Achilles demands of Deiphobus to another spear, and turns to find nothing is there. We would say he had a hallucination. So has Achilles. The Trojan War was directed by hallucinations. And the soldier who were so directed were not at all like us. They were noble automatons who knew not what they did.

The Bicameral Mind

The picture then is one of strangeness and heartlessness and emptiness. We cannot approach these heroes by inventing mind-spaces behind their fierce eyes as we do with each other. Iliadic man did not have subjectivity as do we; he had no awareness of his awareness of the world, no internal mind-space to introspect upon. In distinction ro our own subjective conscious minds, we call the mentality of the Mycenaeans a bicameral mind. Volition, planning, initiative is organized with no consciousness whatever and then 'told' to the individual in his familiar language, sometimes with the visual aura of a familiar friend or authority figure or 'god', or sometimes as a voice alone. The individual obeyed these hallucinated voices because he could not 'see' what to do himself.

More quotes:

The words in the Iliad that in a later age come to mean mental things have different meanings, all of them more concrete. The word psyche, which later means soul or conscious mind, is in most instances life-substances, such as blood or breath: a dying warrior bleeds out his psyche onto the ground or breathes it out in his last gasp. The thumos, which later comes to mean something like emotional soul, is simply motion or agitation. When a man stops moving, the thumos leaves his limbs. But it is also somehow like an organ itself, for when Glaucus prays to Apollo to alleviate his pain and to give him strength to help his friend Sarpedon, Apollo hears his prayer and "casts strength in his thumos" (Iliad, 16:529). The thumos can tell a man to eat, drink, or fight ...

... a raging ocean has thumos ...

Perhaps the most important word is the word noos which, spelled as nous in later Greek, comes to mean conscious mind. It comes from the word noeein, to see. Its proper translation in the Iliad would be something like perception or recognition or field of vision ...

... essentially [mermerizein] means to be in conflict about to actions, not two thoughts. It is always behavioristic. It is said several times of Zeus (20:17, 16:647), as well as of others. The conflict is often said to go on in the thumos, or sometimes in the phrenes, but never in the noos. The eye cannot doubt or be in conflict, as the soon-to-be-invented conscious mind will be able to.

page 69-70

... consciousness is an operation rather then a thing, a repository, or a function. It operates way of analogy, by way of constructing an analog space with an analog 'I' that can observe that space, and move metaphorically in it. It operates on any reactivity, excerpts relevant aspects, narratizes and conciliates them together in a metaphorical space where such meanings can be manipulated like things in space. Conscious mind is a spatial analog of the world and mental acts are analogs of bodily acts. Consciousness operates only on objectively observable things. Or, to say it another way with echoes of John Locke, there is nothing in consciousness that is not an analog of something that was in behavior first.

page 65-66

Very interesting!

And personally, I like how this theory would support the concept that 'I' (the consciousness, the analog of the body, not the body itself) am God (consciousness is an analog of the external world). Decide for yourself what any of it may mean.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Obbe

And personally, I like how this theory would support the concept that 'I' (the consciousness, the analog of the body, not the body itself) am God (consciousness is an analog of the external world). Decide for yourself what any of it may mean.

It would support no such thing at all since, according to you, there is no objectivity and this "theory" requires it to exist!

[Obbe]

Originally Posted by Rust

It would support no such thing at all since, according to you, there is no objectivity and this "theory" requires it to exist!

Still interesting, no?

[Rust]

I don't find meaningless things interesting.

[Obbe]

If thats what you conclude about the subject, thats fine. This book and subject fascinate me.

[Rust]

That's what you've concluded about everything.

[Obbe]

On topic, a quote from wiki:

Brian McVeigh maintains that many of the most frequent criticisms of Jaynes' theory are either incorrect or reflect serious misunderstandings of Jaynes' theory, especially Jaynes' more precise definition of consciousness. Jaynes defines consciousness — in the tradition of Locke and Descartes — as "that which is introspectable." Jaynes draws a sharp distinction between consciousness ('introspectable mind-space') and other mental processes such as cognition, learning, and sense and perception — which occur in all animals. This distinction is frequently not recognized by those offering critiques of Jaynes' theory.

[BrokeProphet]

Originally Posted by Obbe

On topic, a quote from wiki:

Brian and Jayne are unable to know anything other than 'I AM'.

So unless either of their theories are 'I AM', they can be dismissed out of hand, according to you.

Indeed the entire theory of the bicameral mind, goes beyond 'I AM' doesn't it?

----

Why would you start ANY thread at ANYTIME, that stipulates ANYTHING beyond your simple bitch belief Obbe?

All it does is showcase the lack of conviction you have the belief you have puked onto numerous threads for the better part of a year.

Originally Posted by Obbe

According to me, you're a dick.

According to you, he is an illusion.

[Obbe]

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet

So unless either of their theories are 'I AM', they can be dismissed out of hand, according to you.

What do you mean by 'dismiss'? And don't credit your retarded misinterpretations of my concepts to me.

Just because everything cannot be known, doesn't mean people don't pretend they can. Thats all any theory is ... a human creation used to justify the chaos happening all around.

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet

All it does is showcase the lack of conviction you have the belief you have puked onto numerous threads for the better part of a year.

Maybe in your eyes. But no, I still believe things cannot be known. This doesn't restrict me from trying to understand things anyways, or from being interested in the shit going on around me.

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet

According to you, he is an illusion.

But don't forget, a dick.

[BrokeProphet]

Originally Posted by Obbe

Just because everything cannot be known, doesn't mean people don't pretend they can.

I know, you pretend to know shit all the time, and when you are discovered, you regress back to your two word philosophy.

I digress....

Okay, so the people you quoted to support the Bicameral Mind theory, pretend to know something they (again according to YOU) cannot know.

Originally Posted by Obbe

I still believe things cannot be known. This doesn't restrict me from trying to understand things anyways.

Either you TRULY believe things cannot be known, and enjoy wasting your time, and everyone else's when you start a thread and pretend to understand things.

or

You are a hypocrite, who doesn't really believe things cannot be known, until it suits you to profess in regress, when someone is beating you in a debate about something.

Which is why, nobody respects what you have to say.