The Break Down of th Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes

[panca kanga]

Julian Jaynes. The Origin of Consciousness and the Break Down of the Bicameral Mind

I have searched on the forum but not yet found a referance to this very interesting book which covers from a novel perspective many of the subjects we are interested in here.
It was published in 1976 and so may well have been discussed on Cass-Chat, but I subscribed to that forum for a little while and don't recall it being mentioned.
There is an over- view on the wiki:
_http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes
Obviously the wiki does not really bring out the points in his work that I find thought provoking.
Jaynes starts with a very nicely writen over-view of the development of ideas about consciousness over the last century or so. He was obviously interested in the history of science and makes a point of referencing original works.
He also has a very interesting discussion on what consciousness is not and what can nevertheless be done without it. I immediately think of G's sleeping and mechanical men, OPs and etc. Again Jaynes makes his points with references to interesting experiments from the field.
He then brings forward his own views on the nature of consciousness and its late arrival in the human psyche. Here I think of Castaneda's Predators Mind, and that what Jaynes is describing is the imposition of a new type of control system imposed after the collapse of the Bronze Age.

Naturaly there are a lot of gaps in the book from the point of view of the discussions here. Jaynes can make no mention of High Strangeness or other speres of reality.

Also he mixes up the civilisations of middle eastern city states with that in existence on the European Atlantic coast and assumes the Greeks of the Illiad were hiers to the Cretan culture. So he confuses his conclusions about the nature of these societies. Taking that into account his book seems to describe two very different cultures indeed. One of which was a strictly hierarchical society of mind controlled slaves run with the aid of enormous databases holding information on everyone and everything done and to be done. (probably what we are moving toward again)

That is enough for now. I have to write this on an old iphone so typing is difficult. Please excuse the typos and mis-spellings.

Anyway, have others come across this book? Does it have any thing useful to add to the discussions here?

 

[Palinurus]

Hi panca kanga,

I found two mentions of this book on the forum in two separate threads: here and here.

For what I know, there are some interesting recent articles on SotT that may also be of relevance here:

http://www.sott.net/article/264996-Researchers-debunk-myth-of-right-brain-and-left-brain-personality-traits

http://www.sott.net/article/268835-Despite-what-you-ve-been-told-you-arent-left-brained-or-right-brained

 

[Palinurus]

Found two additional references but came just overdue to a possible edit in my previous post:

http://www.sott.net/article/228959-Religion-May-Cause-Brain-Atrophy (in a comment by Seeker)

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/2012-Theories/conversations/topics/1416 (post of Sharon, opening quote)

 

[panca kanga]

Thankyou for those links, Palinurus. The SOTT comment by seeker and the link to a note by Buddy seemed particularly pertinent. I missed Buddy's post when I searched but the other link, pointing to the Ancient City thread had been posted afterwards. (I have been pondering posting on this subject for some time you see.)

With Buddy, I think that parts of the book could be describing OPs and the operation of a civilisation formed of a large, or even total OP population. More particularly I wonder if the ideas in the book make it possible to discern both the 'pyramid' and the 'circle' cultures. The former found in his discussion of the Sumerian materials, the later in the Tojan-Greek tragedy of the Illiad. Jaynes does not see this difference because he had been led to believe that the bronze age Greeks were basicaly Cretans.

 

[Buddy]

With Buddy, I think that parts of the book could be describing OPs and the operation of a civilisation formed of a large, or even total OP population.

Hi panca kanga. I still don't know how well the OP concept matches with what Jaynes is talking about as non-conscious man, but, to me, Jaynes' non-conscious man very much resembles Gurdjieff's description of mechanical man, or man's mechanical thinking.

More particularly I wonder if the ideas in the book make it possible to discern both the 'pyramid' and the 'circle' cultures. The former found in his discussion of the Sumerian materials, the later in the Tojan-Greek tragedy of the Illiad.

I don't recollect what he said of Sumerians, but would we need to date the Sumerian materials according to the time frame represented by both Iliad and Odyssey? I think non-conscious man, in Jaynes' theory, is supposed to cover history up to and including Iliad with the breakdown occurring sometime after that period and before Odyssey.

You're probably aware of this already, so FWIW for other readers, Jaynes' evidence involves the claim that nowhere in the entirety of Iliad will you find an example of anyone doing introspection. Or perhaps it might be better said that Illiad is basically an example of simple recording of fact with no introspective content, thus no consciousness. Along with other evidence, he is saying Iliad represents the non-conscious time in man's history. Contrast with Odyssey which is supposed to represent introspective consciousness in man. He is saying Odyssey represents a more conscious time in man's history and the time gap between the two works may be supposed to represent the period of time of this breakdown with a resulting emergence of consciousness in the general run of humanity, though not anything guaranteed for any specific individual.

 

[Palinurus]

You're probably aware of this already, so FWIW for other readers, Jaynes' evidence involves the claim that nowhere in the entirety of Iliad will you find an example of anyone doing introspection. Or perhaps it might be better said that Illiad is basically an example of simple recording of fact with no introspective content, thus no consciousness. Along with other evidence, he is saying Iliad represents the non-conscious time in man's history. Contrast with Odyssey which is supposed to represent introspective consciousness in man. He is saying Odyssey represents a more conscious time in man's history and the time gap between the two works may be supposed to represent the period of time of this breakdown with a resulting emergence of consciousness in the general run of humanity, though not anything guaranteed for any specific individual.

Hi Buddy,

Reading what you wrote here, I remembered a contribution of mine in the thread The Odyssey - Manual of Secret Teachings? which I will repost here for convenience, stating:

[...]
Still, I have one thought to share off the cuff and that concerns the developments of narrative technology as a complement of the evolution of content, context and interpretation of Homer.

As I have understood, the contrast between the Iliad and the Odyssey as far as the Will of Zeus is concerned consists mainly of an evolution of a fatality based world view ( the will of the gods is decisive) into a world view of feasibility of society via human endeavor and personal initiatives (impressive deeds of heroes and the like, usually assisted by their favorite god who conceives of the ideas they carry out. Might be a reflection of the workings of a bicameral mind, as I come to think of it.).

We then would end up with conversations like 'Jacques the Fatalist and his Master' (by Diderot, see: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_the_Fatalist) or 'Candide: or, Optimism' (by Voltaire, see: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide) as a sort of belated rehash of those ancient developments. I hope I'm not too busy creating anachronisms by the dozen with this one...

Another reference that immediately comes to mind in this context is the book 'The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions' (by Karen Armstrong, see: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong and _http://www.amazon.com/Great-Transformation-Beginning-Religious-Traditions/dp/0375413170) which seems to allude to a similar 'shift of paradigm' in those days and ages around 700-600 BCE (I'm paraphrasing from memory at this point as it was some time now that I read it).
[...]

FWIW. ;)

 

[panca kanga]

Re: The Break Down of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes


Hi Buddy, Thanks for your reply. I thought I would initially respond to the points you offered and hope that this will enable me to explain what I find so interesting about some of the ideas in this book.

With Buddy, I think that parts of the book could be describing OPs and the operation of a civilisation formed of a large, or even total OP population.

Hi panca kanga. I still don't know how well the OP concept matches with what Jaynes is talking about as non-conscious man, but, to me, Jaynes' non-conscious man very much resembles Gurdjieff's description of mechanical man, or man's mechanical thinking.

Well, you are right about my grasp of the OP concept, it is not well developed though I have been exposed to it here for some time. I was thinking in terms of a race without soul qualities, perhaps at one time separate but now mixed with non-OPs across the world. A people unable to see beyond the basic material realities of this world, that is only really interested in the next meal, and without qualities of empathy and sympathy for their neighbours, perhaps working and living best in a hierarchic milieu where direction is clear and their place established. I am not thinking of psychopathic individuals, the failed OP. Such a society would be recognised in Jaynes description of the late neolithic and bronze age city states that spread out from Sumer and Mesopotamia. These where what Jaynes dubbed the bicameral societies and he saw this bicameral consciousness arising at the same time and as a necessary part of the way they functioned. Associated with this were all the other generally recognised parts to the city state. Centralised government closely associated with the priestly caste, a central pyramidal shrine around which the city clustered, very clearly defined and set social roles, writing used to create vast databases of facts relating to the running of the city, but not used for 'literature' and so on.


When I read Jaynes (in about '97 I think) the main thing that struck me then was his description of what is possible without 'consciousness'. What can be done while asleep. Of course he used this description to lead to his definition of consciousness, but when I read it I did as you appear to have done, to describe the workings of the modern 'mechanical man' and wondered therefore what extra qualities might be present on waking from that sleep.
Jaynes appears to have arrived at a definition of consciousness by this via negative reasoning and then tried to find its appearance in an historical context, surprising himself by apparently discovering a rather late appearance in the time scale of human evolution. He then went further and postulated a more archaic form of consciousness present in the late neolithic and bronze age city states. (But not before the neolithic, I think it might be important to note.) Again, moving on from there he looked for socio-historical and physiological explanations for the appearance of both these modern and more archaic forms.

More particularly I wonder if the ideas in the book make it possible to discern both the 'pyramid' and the 'circle' cultures. The former found in his discussion of the Sumerian materials, the later in the Trojan-Greek tragedy of the Iliad.

I don't recollect what he said of Sumerians, but would we need to date the Sumerian materials according to the time frame represented by both Iliad and Odyssey? I think non-conscious man, in Jaynes' theory, is supposed to cover history up to and including Iliad with the breakdown occurring sometime after that period and before Odyssey.

Well this is one of the things that interests me so much about these ideas, but by reading it from a perspective gained from reading Laura's' work.
As I wrote previously I suspect that Jaynes was mistakenly lead into thinking the Greeks of the Iliad were part of the Cretan cultural heritage which he considered a bicameral city state with all its attendant trappings. We know those Greeks were not living in such a culture. However he does potentially give us a picture of the 'Pyramid' cultural sphere completely in the grip of an STS control system, and a late-ish Northern example of the circle building shamanistic culture being further brought under the control systems influences. (BTW. I am largely with Helen and the Trojans and think the Greeks were the more deeply corrupted.)

You're probably aware of this already, so FWIW for other readers, Jaynes' evidence involves the claim that nowhere in the entirety of Iliad will you find an example of anyone doing introspection. Or perhaps it might be better said that Iliad is basically an example of simple recording of fact with no introspective content, thus no consciousness. Along with other evidence, he is saying Iliad represents the non-conscious time in man's history. Contrast with Odyssey which is supposed to represent introspective consciousness in man. He is saying Odyssey represents a more conscious time in man's history and the time gap between the two works may be supposed to represent the period of time of this breakdown with a resulting emergence of consciousness in the general run of humanity, though not anything guaranteed for any specific individual.

This leads onto the second area into which I find myself speculating when reading this book. And to keep things short, I might just say that I suspect this modern consciousness, this metaphorical space in which we act and plan and play out our fantasies is none other that the predators mind, (which is also the kunderbuffer?). Imposed upon us when the spell of the bicameral mind could no longer be cast.
What do you think?

 

[Buddy]

As I have understood, the contrast between the Iliad and the Odyssey as far as the Will of Zeus is concerned consists mainly of an evolution of a fatality based world view...

Yes, "OMG, what have we done? The gods have left us!"

...into a world view of feasibility of society via human endeavor and personal initiatives...

Yes, a social cognition in a sense. A new ability to conceive a symbolic "I" in relationships - to others and to situations and circumstances related to people living and working together. Now people have to talk to themselves for guidance, referring to some central authority when in doubt. I believe this is a major theme that guides his thesis. May also be applicable to the work on "authoritarians."

We then would end up with conversations like 'Jacques the Fatalist and his Master' (by Diderot, see: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_the_Fatalist) or 'Candide: or, Optimism' (by Voltaire, see: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide) as a sort of belated rehash of those ancient developments. I hope I'm not too busy creating anachronisms by the dozen with this one...

Yep, all despair being founded on abandonment by the gods and all hope being founded on a possibility or promise of regaining that automatic guidance (and other benefits) that was lost.

Another reference that immediately comes to mind in this context is the book 'The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions' (by Karen Armstrong, see: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong and _http://www.amazon.com/Great-Transformation-Beginning-Religious-Traditions/dp/0375413170) which seems to allude to a similar 'shift of paradigm' in those days and ages around 700-600 BCE (I'm paraphrasing from memory at this point as it was some time now that I read it).
[...]

FWIW. ;)

Haven't read it but it sounds like it's aligned to Jaynes' context.


-------------

This leads onto the second area into which I find myself speculating when reading this book. And to keep things short, I might just say that I suspect this modern consciousness, this metaphorical space in which we act and plan and play out our fantasies is none other that the predators mind...
What do you think?

I think the part of modern consciousness that uses and believes in its symbols of reality and is analogized as the predator's mind may be the part that is based on assumptions that one's implicit and explicit understanding of reality is complete and that reality as they understand and express it is a singular context from atom to universe scale and that anything they don't know, doesn't exist and that they are a separable part of it all and can have a god-like overview of whatever. This is fiction, in my estimation, and any narrower fiction based on these assumptions - even all the programming we talk about, are like set elements where the whole of the set makes up the predator's mind. And by association there's the rest of our physiology that's involved in everything we say and do.

Amazingly, people will read something like the above and think 'of course that's true', but then they will talk and act like they believe its opposite. Like people who claim they understand that one day they will die, yet they still live irresponsibly as though they think they will live forever and they don't consider how their lives intersect and impact others, or if they do think about it, they don't care or have any way of changing their perspectives. Same contrast, I think.

 

[Palinurus]

Thanks for your responses, Buddy. Much obliged!

I think the part of modern consciousness that uses and believes in its symbols of reality and is analogized as the predator's mind may be the part that is based on assumptions that one's implicit and explicit understanding of reality is complete and that reality as they understand and express it is a singular context from atom to universe scale and that anything they don't know, doesn't exist and that they are a separable part of it all and can have a god-like overview of whatever. This is fiction, in my estimation, and any narrower fiction based on these assumptions - even all the programming we talk about, are like set elements where the whole of the set makes up the predator's mind. And by association there's the rest of our physiology that's involved in everything we say and do.

IMO, this is a very concise description of what the predator's mind is supposed to accomplish: to ban and stamp out any and all doubt, to establish an infallible authority (Pope, for instance), to promote black and white dichotomous thinking with the accompanying inevitable bloodshed and to procure absolute certainty beyond any possible question.

All doomed to fail, obviously, because reality doesn't work this way. Only a dream scape does. Hence, being asleep...

 

[Buddy]

IMO, this is a very concise description of what the predator's mind is supposed to accomplish: to ban and stamp out any and all doubt, to establish an infallible authority (Pope, for instance), to promote black and white dichotomous thinking with the accompanying inevitable bloodshed and to procure absolute certainty beyond any possible question.

All doomed to fail, obviously, because reality doesn't work this way. Only a dream scape does. Hence, being asleep...

Yes!!! [doing somersaults!]