Log in

View Full Version : The Bicameral Mind


Obbe
2008-12-12, 21:06
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
2008-12-12, 23:14
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
2008-12-13, 01:44
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
2008-12-13, 03:37
I don't find meaningless things interesting.

Obbe
2008-12-13, 05:01
If thats what you conclude about the subject, thats fine. This book and subject fascinate me.

Rust
2008-12-13, 11:05
That's what you've concluded about everything.

Obbe
2008-12-13, 18:29
That's what you've concluded about everything.

The only reasons are the ones we create.

BrokeProphet
2008-12-13, 20:17
I think what Rust is trying to implicate, Obbe, is that you pull your abstract nonsense out of your ass when it suits you.

Which makes you a hypocrite.

You do believe what you assert, don't you Obbe? You do practice what you preach, don't you? I mean you have been puking it on here for a year or better. You don't just say it because you are a mental midget who finds himself backed into an intellectual corner, and are foolish enough to actually think your infinite regression into your abstract nonsense saves you some face, do you?

Obbe
2008-12-13, 20:40
How am I a hypocrite? I say the only reasons are the ones we create. And I follow this.

You do this too, broke.

Rust
2008-12-13, 21:48
The only reasons are the ones we create.

Since that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you've called everything meaningless in the past, I'll take that as you conceding you're a dishonest piece of shit.

Obbe
2008-12-14, 02:43
Since that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you've called everything meaningless in the past, I'll take that as you conceding you're a dishonest piece of shit.

It has everything to do with it. I just have not expressed it that way before.

Rust
2008-12-14, 04:02
I'm glad we both agree you are a dishonest piece of shit. :)

Obbe
2008-12-14, 04:05
I'm glad we both agree you are a dishonest piece of shit. :)

Honesty is a matter of perception. :)

Rust
2008-12-14, 04:10
Of course! Which is why I appreciate you making that perception of you so damn easy.

Obbe
2008-12-14, 04:17
Of course! Which is why I appreciate you making that perception of you so damn easy.

It is not I who did anything. The perception is contained within your mind.

Rust
2008-12-14, 04:23
Keep helping my case! :)

Obbe
2008-12-14, 04:25
Keep helping my case! :)

Your "case" is worthless! :)

Rust
2008-12-14, 04:31
Says the dishonest man.

Obbe
2008-12-14, 04:45
Oh, now it has worth. :rolleyes:

Even more so now that you've used it to completely derail my thread. Troll.

killallthewhiteman
2008-12-14, 12:17
It's good.

Really ill give anything relating to consciousness at least a glance.

Its something that everyone should be duplicating, understanding, contemplating and realizing because it is something fundamental to who we are.

As for the derailing of the thread; karma is awesome.

Rust
2008-12-14, 12:45
Oh, now it has worth. :rolleyes:

Even more so now that you've used it to completely derail my thread. Troll.

What the fuck are you babbling about? What has worth?


P.S. As for "derailing" the thread. You reap what you sow. :)

Or wait, an even better reply! "Derailing is a matter of perception. The perception that I have derailed this thread is contained in your mind."

Obbe
2008-12-14, 17:25
See rust? There are no reasons.

You're just a dick!

Rust
2008-12-15, 15:06
Pointing out your dishonesty is being a "dick" now? How convenient.

Obbe
2008-12-15, 15:08
Pointing out your dishonesty is being a "dick" now? How convenient.

No, I don't know your reason to be a dick.

Rust
2008-12-15, 15:16
No, I don't know your reason to be a dick.

Reading often proves difficult for you, huh?

Nothing I said required that you know the reason I am - according to you - a dick.

Obbe
2008-12-15, 15:29
According to me, you're a dick.

Obbe
2008-12-15, 19:15
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
2008-12-15, 22:32
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.

According to me, you're a dick.

According to you, he is an illusion.

Obbe
2008-12-15, 22:41
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.

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.

According to you, he is an illusion.

But don't forget, a dick.

BrokeProphet
2008-12-15, 22:49
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.

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.

Obbe
2008-12-15, 23:01
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.

What makes you think I would consider it a waste of time? Or, what do you think would be a worthwhile time, instead?

Create as many reasons to justify reality as you want broke. You still don't know anything, and there is no order. It's all chaos.

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.

It suits me to remind people that they are just pretending to know things and pretending the world makes sense, when such people are being complete dicks to others, who are also pretending to know things and pretending the world makes sense, but have different answers.

In my eyes (which are as blind as any others), neither group is "correct" or has the "right" to be a complete dicks to the other. Both of the groups ways of justifying the chaos of reality are equally reasonable and unreasonable. Is it "right" for me to do this?

The answer is there is no "right". There just is what there is.

edit -

And broke; if you weren't so intent on being the biggest dick on the board and arguing with me, and actually read what this thread is about ... I just think you would find in interesting. Honestly, check it out dude.

Rust
2008-12-16, 00:29
According to me, you're a dick.

Yes. I've decided to be a dick to complete fucking morons like you since it makes as much reason as not being one. Congratulations, you reap what you sow.

That aside, back to the point at hand:

You've said there is no objectivity. This theory requires it. Thus, thus theory doesn't support a single thing you believe in; yet here you are claiming it does. Dishonesty at its finest.

BrokeProphet
2008-12-16, 00:44
And broke; if you weren't so intent on being the biggest dick on the board and arguing with me, and actually read what this thread is about ... I just think you would find in interesting. Honestly, check it out dude.

I actually like the bicameral mind theory, have given it some study and thought, and even created a thread about it on here 6+months ago.

I am not trying to be the biggest dick on the board, I am just trying to feed you some of what you have been shitting on threads for a long while now.

What's wrong, don't like it?

Worry not, b/c it, me, this thread, this forum, your computer, indeed the entire observable universe is all an illusion.

If you really believed that, you wouldn't have a problem with it would you now?

You don't REALLY believe it do you? You just use it as a last form of defense when your ideas and suggestions are beaten back into your face with logic and reason.

You are a living joke. A punchline. Comparing one to Obbe by calling them Obbesque, or stop being Obbish, or that's a rather Obbe theory, is akin to calling a person a complete and utter fucktard.

ArmsMerchant
2008-12-17, 04:09
I am sick to death of this bickering.

Enough is enough.