> -- > mad >>How did human beings who lived five thousand years ago view themselves? How did they make decisions and how did they reflect on their past? >>Julian Jaynes gives a radical answer to these questions: until a few thousand years ago human beings did not ‘view themselves’. They did not have the ability: >>they had no introspection and no concept of ‘self’ that they could think about.
Julian James can't say "all humans" did not view themselves, 5,000 years ago. He wasn't around then, and can't speak about humans back then.
<yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Nov 8, 12:19 am, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> In case you can't find the book for those of you who are open minded >> enough:
>>>How did human beings who lived five thousand years ago view themselves? How did they make decisions and how did they reflect on their past?
>>>Julian Jaynes gives a radical answer to these questions: until a few thousand years ago human beings did not ‘view themselves’. They did not have the ability: >>they had no introspection and no concept of ‘self’ that they could think about.
>Julian James can't say "all humans" did not view themselves, 5,000 >years ago. >He wasn't around then, and can't speak about humans back then.
>Jeff
It's a theory, Jeff. It's not fact.
He backs his theory up with some fairly convincing evidence; we can see vestiges of the bicameral mind in schizophrenics. -- mad
Mack A. Damia wrote: > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:44:16 -0800 (PST), Jeff > <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 8, 12:19 am, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> In case you can't find the book for those of you who are open minded >>> enough:
>>> -- >>> mad >>>> How did human beings who lived five thousand years ago view themselves? How did they make decisions and how did they reflect on their past? >>>> Julian Jaynes gives a radical answer to these questions: until a few thousand years ago human beings did not ‘view themselves’. They did not have the ability: >>they had no introspection and no concept of ‘self’ that they could think about.
>> Julian James can't say "all humans" did not view themselves, 5,000 >> years ago. >> He wasn't around then, and can't speak about humans back then.
>> Jeff
> It's a theory, Jeff. It's not fact.
> He backs his theory up with some fairly convincing evidence; we can > see vestiges of the bicameral mind in schizophrenics.
I can see vestiges of the "Great Salad Fork" on a clear day in Jersey...
Jayne's "theorizing" (on this and other points) is not backed up by "fairly convincing evidence" - almost his entire book is really more of a "poetic" (and somewhat paranoiac) hallucination of hypotheses, in which "facts" are shoved and shaved to fit a pre-conceived notion. It had its moment in the sun (like the Victorian mechanical model of the brain), but that's gone now. It's drawing pointless bell curves with The Naked Ape and Ptolemy...
>Mack A. Damia wrote: >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:44:16 -0800 (PST), Jeff >> <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 8, 12:19 am, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> In case you can't find the book for those of you who are open minded >>>> enough:
>>>> -- >>>> mad >>>>> How did human beings who lived five thousand years ago view themselves? How did they make decisions and how did they reflect on their past? >>>>> Julian Jaynes gives a radical answer to these questions: until a few thousand years ago human beings did not ‘view themselves’. They did not have the ability: >>they had no introspection and no concept of ‘self’ that they could think about.
>>> Julian James can't say "all humans" did not view themselves, 5,000 >>> years ago. >>> He wasn't around then, and can't speak about humans back then.
>>> Jeff
>> It's a theory, Jeff. It's not fact.
>> He backs his theory up with some fairly convincing evidence; we can >> see vestiges of the bicameral mind in schizophrenics.
>I can see vestiges of the "Great Salad Fork" on a clear day in Jersey...
>Jayne's "theorizing" (on this and other points) is not backed up by >"fairly convincing evidence" - almost his entire book is really more of >a "poetic" (and somewhat paranoiac) hallucination of hypotheses, in >which "facts" are shoved and shaved to fit a pre-conceived notion. It >had its moment in the sun (like the Victorian mechanical model of the >brain), but that's gone now. It's drawing pointless bell curves with The >Naked Ape and Ptolemy...
*Some* fairly convincing evidence.
His theory remains controversial. I happen to subscribe to it.
> Wondering what you see this as relevant to. > Are we supposed to agree on this and accept it?
Several of us were discussing the Bible and the major Western religions in another thread. In the course of that discussion, Mack mentioned Jaynes' work and theories.
I read the summary, very interesting although in places a bit too deep to penetrate this aging but still highly integrated mind at 10 AM on a Sunday.
I gather that he's proposing that the mind's evolution is mainly a social phenomenon rather than a physiological one. My inclination is to disagree with that one.
> I read the summary, very interesting although in places a bit too deep > to penetrate this aging but still highly integrated mind at 10 AM on a > Sunday.
> I gather that he's proposing that the mind's evolution is mainly a > social phenomenon rather than a physiological one. My inclination is to > disagree with that one.
One has to carefully discriminate between "brain" and "mind" here, don't you think? The brain's development is mainly a physiological one, although it has been shown that the very structure of that organ is altered by experience. The mind on the other hand is a very much slipperier concept, being the sum total of a person's brain activity, the powers and limits of their body, their interactions with the environment (including other people, books read, endocrine activity, and on and on): the mind is more like the "ghost in the machine". And a culture taken as a unit - in effect - has its own "mind" - just as they talk of "hive mind" and such. There are so many theories of how the human brain managed to make itself so unique that it seems they might never quite get a handle on it, but Jayne's theory on the matter doesn't strike me as the most convincing one, and - since I did read it (back when I was interested in such things) - I feel it is far too much of putting the horse before the cart as theorizing goes: a general concept of what the "truth" is followed by a lot of work to make the facts fit or at least suggest that "truth". To me it was mere pop neurology.
> >> Wondering what you see this as relevant to. > >> Are we supposed to agree on this and accept it?
> You may take it or leave it. I mentioned the bicameral mind in > relation to a discussion about religion, and an "expert" challenged > the idea.
> I can't find any evidence or research done by the "expert", though. > I've Googled and Googled, too.
> It's okay to challenge a theory as long as the challenge is > "reasoned".
> >It's only relevant to the person who wrote the book, > >pretending he's an expert about people..5000 > >years ago...when he knows nothing.
> See my previous answer. It's only a theory, but it happens to make a > lot of sense to me because I've studied many of the areas Jaynes > touches on.
> -- > mad
I just want you to know that response wasn't intended to flame you.
>I read the summary, very interesting although in places a bit too deep >to penetrate this aging but still highly integrated mind at 10 AM on a >Sunday.
>I gather that he's proposing that the mind's evolution is mainly a >social phenomenon rather than a physiological one. My inclination is to >disagree with that one.
I am interested in the origins of consciousnes, and there's not much written about it. I came across his book as a footnote, so I ordered it from somewhere - maybe Amazon - I don't recall.
I was impressed with his theory and research.
But, for instance, there is another theory that says consciousness did not occur until we began to develop language - and language was developed to assist early man in collective-hunting - first certain sounds to indicate to others to do something specific - and it grew from there.
These are only theories - and it's dull and stupid to get bent out of shape about them -and to shoot the messenger.
<yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >On Nov 8, 5:04 am, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:47:06 -0800 (PST), Jeff
>> <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 8, 3:25 am, globular <s...@there.invalid> wrote: >> >> Mack A. Damia wrote:
>> >> > In case you can't find the book for those of you who are open minded >> >> > enough:
>> >> Wondering what you see this as relevant to. >> >> Are we supposed to agree on this and accept it?
>> You may take it or leave it. I mentioned the bicameral mind in >> relation to a discussion about religion, and an "expert" challenged >> the idea.
>> I can't find any evidence or research done by the "expert", though. >> I've Googled and Googled, too.
>> It's okay to challenge a theory as long as the challenge is >> "reasoned".
>> >It's only relevant to the person who wrote the book, >> >pretending he's an expert about people..5000 >> >years ago...when he knows nothing.
>> See my previous answer. It's only a theory, but it happens to make a >> lot of sense to me because I've studied many of the areas Jaynes >> touches on.
>> -- >> mad
>I just want you to know that response wasn't intended to flame >you.
>Jeff
Thanks. I didn't take it as a flame - just a statement of disbelief!
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:25:00 -0600, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote: snip
>Jayne's "theorizing" (on this and other points) is not backed up by >"fairly convincing evidence" - almost his entire book is really more of >a "poetic" (and somewhat paranoiac) hallucination of hypotheses, in >which "facts" are shoved and shaved to fit a pre-conceived notion. It >had its moment in the sun (like the Victorian mechanical model of the >brain), but that's gone now. It's drawing pointless bell curves with The >Naked Ape and Ptolemy...
>dmh
I agree. It was a fun read 30 years ago, but even then I didn't give it too much credence.
>>Jayne's "theorizing" (on this and other points) is not backed up by >>"fairly convincing evidence" - almost his entire book is really more of >>a "poetic" (and somewhat paranoiac) hallucination of hypotheses, in >>which "facts" are shoved and shaved to fit a pre-conceived notion. It >>had its moment in the sun (like the Victorian mechanical model of the >>brain), but that's gone now. It's drawing pointless bell curves with The >>Naked Ape and Ptolemy...
>>dmh
>I agree. It was a fun read 30 years ago, but even then I didn't give >it too much credence.
What do you think about his theory on Blake? -- mad
>> I read the summary, very interesting although in places a bit too deep >> to penetrate this aging but still highly integrated mind at 10 AM on a >> Sunday.
>> I gather that he's proposing that the mind's evolution is mainly a >> social phenomenon rather than a physiological one. My inclination is to >> disagree with that one.
>One has to carefully discriminate between "brain" and "mind" here, don't >you think? The brain's development is mainly a physiological one, >although it has been shown that the very structure of that organ is >altered by experience. The mind on the other hand is a very much >slipperier concept, being the sum total of a person's brain activity, >the powers and limits of their body, their interactions with the >environment (including other people, books read, endocrine activity, and >on and on): the mind is more like the "ghost in the machine". And a >culture taken as a unit - in effect - has its own "mind" - just as they >talk of "hive mind" and such. There are so many theories of how the >human brain managed to make itself so unique that it seems they might >never quite get a handle on it, but Jayne's theory on the matter doesn't >strike me as the most convincing one, and - since I did read it (back >when I was interested in such things) - I feel it is far too much of >putting the horse before the cart as theorizing goes: a general concept >of what the "truth" is followed by a lot of work to make the facts fit >or at least suggest that "truth". To me it was mere pop neurology.
The brain is the vessal for the mind. The mind is effected by environmental forces: consider brainwashing - and our uncanny abilty to learn a language in a relatively short period of time after birth.
As I said, there are those with far more intelligence and insight into this than you and I who subscribe and support the theory. There are also many critics, but it's fascinating mind stuff, regardless.
It's ongoing. Another book was published in 2006. That's only three years ago, and nobody here who has claimed to have read the original book has mentioned it.
*Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness: Julian Jaynes's Bicameral Mind Theory Revisited* Edited by Marcel Kuijsten. The book contains thirteen essays including Jaynes, himself. Pretty easy reading, too.
Off the top of my head, I would wager that Jungian personality theory has some bearing: his theory of archetypes and the collective unconscious.
rwalker wrote: > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:25:00 -0600, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> > wrote: > snip
>> Jayne's "theorizing" (on this and other points) is not backed up by >> "fairly convincing evidence" - almost his entire book is really more of >> a "poetic" (and somewhat paranoiac) hallucination of hypotheses, in >> which "facts" are shoved and shaved to fit a pre-conceived notion. It >> had its moment in the sun (like the Victorian mechanical model of the >> brain), but that's gone now. It's drawing pointless bell curves with The >> Naked Ape and Ptolemy...
>> dmh
> I agree. It was a fun read 30 years ago, but even then I didn't give > it too much credence.
That's about right: there was a spate of pop science and psychology books back then (not that we don't get plenty enough now), and this one managed to float on top for a little time. It was amusing to read, but it never convinced me.
|
