Julian Jaynes; The Origin of Consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind

[SFG75]

On myspace, a lot of people have pages devoted to the famous that you can add as your "friends." I added Julian Jaynes about a year ago and kept hearing about this bicameral mind business. I honestly had no clue what it was about. Fast forward to a few weeks ago and I find myself in the library of my new community looking at the non-fiction section. And what do I see, I had to get this book to see once and for what it was all about.

To Jaynes, consciousness evolved in man, much like physical features and abilities evolved with man and animals. To Jaynes, early man was not "conscious" like we are presently. Early man did not possess the ability to be introspective and had a "bicameral" mind whereby auditory hallucinations played a prominent role. Your "inner voice" or "hunch" couldn't warn you about a neighbor from another tribe, but the voice could. Jaynes bases his theory on the writings of ancient people who show a distinct lack of "I" in writings. Introspection is noticably absent. The "breakdown" occured with the sudden disappearances of certain kingdoms around the world. Why were certain Meso-American settlements abandoned almost overnight? Why did Middle Eastern kingdoms do likewise?

Jaynes credits expanding trade with the diminishing of the "voice." With contact with more people, the intuitive voice lost it's power and urgency to remain with the group. The ability to learn how to be deceptive also may havep layed a role. As people learned to cheat one another in business, or to trap trespassers, the mind learned a more complex set of rules and began to hedge consciousness more towards an acknowledgement of the "I."

We still have "bicameral" mind tendencies around us today. Shamans, oracles, and people who are schizophrenic, are the remnants of a past era according to Jaynes. Overall, the evidence appears to be a leap, though it is interesting to note a key "break" in ancient writings between simple record keeping and history writing, and acknowledgment of the "I." This book does offer an interesting hypothesis as to why God doesn't "speak" to civilization any more. Whie scant on scientific brain evidence, it is a good read on consciousness and it's evolution.

 

[Peder]

. . . . God doesn't "speak" to civilization any more.

Scott, that's quite a conclusion!

Yours? His?

 

[SFG75]

Scott, that's quite a conclusion!

Yours? His?

His, based on religious writings and handwringing about how at times, the Gods are "silent" and don't "speak." To him, the disappearance of the bicameral mind is the cause of it. That is the icing on the cake to him in regards to this topic.

 

[Peder]

His, based on religious writings and handwringing about how at times, the Gods are "silent" and don't "speak." To him, the disappearance of the bicameral mind is the cause of it. That is the icing on the cake to him in regards to this topic.

I'm not sure that he and I are looking at the same world. It sounds to me like he over-generalizes from a very narrow, local view of the world.

I think one might argue that God is still heard to speak by large numbers of people in the world. And for many of them, for example, He is telling them to destroy the Great Satan. And I wouldn't wish to judge whether they had bicameral minds or not. That's the very visible example.

I hope also that his eyes are open enough to notice that serious people in the Western World can be found in large numbers who still believe in and are in communion with God -- again without my wanting to comment on whether they have bicameral minds or not.

As a nit-pick, it sounds to me like he means self-consciousness when he says consciousness. I think it is arguable instead, from the path of developmment of early forms of religious impulse, that early man was conscious of the world around him (long) before he became self-conscious and differentiated himself as an 'I.' But that's a mostly personal opinion.