"Gods"Once Spoke to Most of Us? The Bicameral Mind

Post Reply New Topic

Aside from however we are supposed to know the frequency of people's communications in ancient times, what train of thought would lead people to think that in the past people spoke less often? How would people know what the oral traditions meant if they didn't really speak in the first place? Yes I can see human memory decreasing as the genome deteriorates, but that says nothing toward the value they place on their memories or the fidelity of their transmissions.

Or is it like in "Animal Farm", ( when Boxer is taken off to the knackers/slaughterhouse , and the pigs tell everyone that he is retired and happily out at pasture), simply the plaidoyer of convinced complex- language-users to persuade people that it is alright, that although concentrated language use means they will no longer hear god(s)' voice(s) audibly anymore it is for their own good in the long term? Putting a stop to the protests and complaints about their loss of contact with god in the old ways. Convince the people that the loss/sacrifice was what god wanted. And advance.

Why has the West got all this weird stuff, and the far east not? What did they have in the way of "voices"?

Recent history. Why the middle classes called "the chattering classes". Exposure to writing and reading increases talk. Observation of other societies. Country people, labourers, peasants, the poor, have small vocabularies, and in still relatively unmodernised tribes in africa, and parts of india,etc, almost noone speaks except to tell stories, or exchange info. Lots more communication in groups is complex body language, to the point that almost nothing "said" but whole conversation held. Smiles, and laughs and glances, and snatches of song ( wordlesss), etc, can make up whole communication for hours of a group of african women.
Also the "value" accorded to speech. How once upon a time "your word was your bond". It was not light. It was an exchange of huge importance, like a cheque, no, more like real gold. This is no longer the case in most western society.

Last edited by ouinon on 06 Mar 2008, 8:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

So, for the communication, the present, in some areas, is extrapolated into the past?

Yes. Those kinds of observations, amongst many others, confirm the now generally accepted version of the history of evolution of language, which is that it was extremely simple in the beginning and that complex use/expression evolved as time passed, and that it was supported in its growth by the invention of writing.
Rather like how can establish the origins and age of a gene in a population, study of linguistics can, also, up to a point, establish how "old" words are, how big vocabularies were, and, though more tenuously, what concepts existed etc.

Last edited by ouinon on 06 Mar 2008, 9:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

Its impossible to "know" about something like this if it happened that many thousands of years ago. Plain and simple.

The point is to plant the idea and see what it produces.

And who says cannot know, or at least make more considered judgements about it than simple dismissal, which might have implications for society now?

Why not treat the bible as an in some ways reasonable, if necessarily subjective, testimony of experience as psychologists do increasingly with patients because they have discovered that it leads to far better results. Accepting what a patient tells you is happening rather than declaring it impossible or imaginary, has surprisingly powerful results. People start to engage with the world again etc. And psychologists have made some startling and powerful discoveries about how the mind works as a result!

It is only while label contents of bible senseless/deluded/"primitive" rubbish that such theories as Jaynes' seem like unexaminable and/or irrelevant hypotheses. If choose instead to read it as written by rational beings, at least as rational as you or I, then need to consider Jaynes' idea. As at least a possibility. And one which raises very interesting questions.

Last edited by ouinon on 06 Mar 2008, 11:29 am, edited 8 times in total.

Just recapping what Odin referred to; recent discoveries in neuroscience show that increased/greater exposure to rich/complex language use from birth (or even before?) effects how the brain develops; that it wires itself to deal with the code called language, and it does seem likely that in doing so other faculties/mental activities may be affected.

I was thinking about how it seems as if there has been selection for human societies showing the greatest complexity, and how one of the mechanisms for achieving such complexity may have been the development of complex language, but which involved a significant "sacrifice"/loss of a mental function, a loss which provoked "pain"/distress on the part of many, which may have been assuaged by convincing them, with language, of how this function had been sacrificed ( and in fact only relocated) for the greater good, survival, success, of humankind.

Was thinking that if science now represents another potential move in the direction of increasingly complex social organisation, it too might involve some sacrifice. If humans are like cells in the history of evolution, to attain greater complexity we may be required to suppress those of our individual capacities/enjoyments which do not contribute to the smooth functioning of the larger scheme/system/body.

Will science be able to persuade people of the importance of doing so? Or will we do something else?

Was thinking, what will that "brain" be capable of which results from a "body" of the whole human race? !Was thinking that Jaynes' idea makes me realise the real possibility of that kind of transformation of the human . And that we, as one entity, may be, like a frog, ( with their significantly more powerful nervous system "centre" connecting up the whole mass of cells compared to fish) about to leave one environment for another in consequence.

Your using the stories of "god speaking to the people" from the bible as a reference..? I rest my case..
Who says you cannot know? Common sense says you cant. Unless they said otherwise somehow on cave paintings or if your thousands of years old (which is unlikely ), you cannot know this for a fact. Not to mention that ones spirit is a completely seperate "thing" from thier body (including the brain, although it is definetly merged). That fact alone proves the theory wrong. I know this because I remember my own descension, unless you mean to tell me that has something to do with the evolution of our conciousness as well hm..

Completely separate, or definitely merged? I am not clear exactly where, or what, the fact is in your reply.

I also don't understand why what you believe about your spirit leads you to consider the bible of little use in establishing/discovering anything about the thoughts and behaviours of humans in the past. Nor why you appear to believe that mention of such a phenomenon in cave paintings, on the other hand, would be reliable evidence.

I find it more interesting and fruitful to believe that the bible does convey/record some of the actual attitudes,experiences, and concepts of people, however partially.

My point was, that there is no actual evidence. I should have been more clear with that, because I dont think cave paintings have anything to do with it.. I was just being sarcastic sorry lol
They are seperate, so much in fact that I believe that our bodies and our souls are two completely different people, yet are merged with one another to essencially produce one person. To answer your other question, is because there are more religions out there than what the bible teaches, and thats as far as I wish to go. I dont rely on facts that other sources give me, everything I know is through experience.

Yeah the Bible only mentions the religions of the Egyptians, Canaanites, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, etc. So what if it didn't mention others, it doesn't matter. If you're having a hypoglycemic episode you can have all the artificial sweeteners you want but they wont be the same as a sugar. I know that's a poor analogy, but do you get the point? Counterfeits don't disprove the real thing.

Um, the theory of the bicameral mind does not just rely on the Bible, but also refers to the Tale of Gilgamesh, and Greek myths. Jaynes' point was that all western civilisations may have experienced this phenomenon. And expressed it in various ways in language and religious art etc.

What I'm wondering is why there doesn't seem to have been an equivalent in the Far East. Is there any history of times in China when people experienced the gods/god as speaking to them?

If not, why not? Would the difference be entirely genetic, or based on differences in diet? ( eg: consumption of dairy, a food opioid, confined almost exclusively to western countries until recently), or to how language developed under certain conditions etc. And certainly Eastern language, like its writing, is significantly different to that in the west.

i dont think god has spoken to anyone. and its not like mental health issues and drug uses only showed up in the modern times. they have both been around forever

I have read that book and it is an interesting theory; however, here is a theory of my own. I am not a scientist, I am not an anthropologist, and I certainly don't mean to offend anyone, but this is just something based on my own reading and observations.

What if Aspergers' was the ORIGINAL human condition, and Neurotypicals are a relatively recent "mutation"? I say this because there are commonalities that I have observed between Aspergers and what appears to be the thought processes of "Neolithic" peoples, such as the Native Americans before the European conquest. Over and over again in reading the words of Native American leaders, I am struck by how bewildered they were by the whites' deceitful behavior. They could not understand the concept of not keeping your word. Does this sound familiar to any of us? They also were big into dreams, vision quests, alternate realities, roleplaying, fantasties, use your own term. They also seemed to be more tolerant of deviant and eccentric behavior as long as it did not disrupt the functioning of the community. I am thinking a person with Aspergers would probably have fit in quite well with some pre-European Native American societies. I do not know about other non-technological cultures, such as the Aborigines, but I suspect you would find the same kind of thing.

Likewise, I believe that the rise in autism is a combination of environment and genetics and may represent a reversion to this more primitive human condition because, well, there is no other way to put it, we are basically living a life we aren't designed for, and we haven't evolved fast enough to adapt. The mind/body can't handle the constant bombardment and it shuts down.

Again, just some thoughts . . .

[quote="ouinon"]:afro: :flower:


:!: :star: Been reading about Julian Jaynes, and his book, "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind". 1974. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes


I hadn't heard of this theory before. It posits a relatively recent transition period between "instinct-driven/directed" animal state, and our present one of the conscious "free" I. And suggests that, for example, much of the lamenting and grief in the Old Testament refer to the increasing loss of this "connection" with what was experienced as gods voice.

I am still thinking about this. It feels weird as an idea, as if can suddenly remember a previous state of being. Did our brains really change that significantly, that recently? Did we pass through a stage during which we were no longer just products of our instincts, but in which we still experienced powerful authorative injunctions to certain behaviours?

OR have we just learned another way to use our brains? Developed cognitive tools, sophisticated language, etc, which has suppressed this process, perhaps only occurs in unusual states of dream, mental illness ( so called), fear, exceptional brain states etc.

:?: What do people think?

8)[/quote]

The chances of the entire human race being mode-switched in the course of a thousand years is down in the noise.

1. Most people lived in relative isolation from other people.
2. There was no world-wide disaster (such as the Noachic Flood) in the period that Jaynes postuates. That last time such a major extinction level event occurred was 75,000 years ago when a super-volcano erupted in the Pacific nearly finishing off the human race.

The empirical evidence to support Janynes just isn't there. I thought his book was extremely witty and amusing but I did not believe a word of it. I put Jaynes right up there with Immanuel Velikovsky.

Ba'al Chatzaf