The Origin of Consciousness-Bicameral Mind

General discussion about the Elder Race, Life, the Universe and Everything.
Post Reply
tymeflyz
Indagator
Indagator
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:54 pm

The Origin of Consciousness-Bicameral Mind

Post by tymeflyz » Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:57 pm

Julian Jaynes' thesis, The Origin of Consciousness In the Breakup of the Bicameral Mind.
http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdf ... usness.pdf
Gary Vey wrote this page http://www.viewzone.com/state-of-mind/01.html
This theory is interesting -the human mind at aprox 3,000 b.c. before or the birth of the "ego" .
The read was a little long but thought provoking just the same.
I also found instrumental as a basis to understanding the "BIcameral mind"
Rudolph Steiner's An Occult Physiology: The Being of Man
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19110320p01.html
GOPI i'd be interested in your opinion if your inclined to voice it.
Thanks

User avatar
Gopi
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Contact:

Re: The Origin of Consciousness-Bicameral Mind

Post by Gopi » Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:22 pm

It is very interesting to see that thesis, and most of his data and understanding seems to be quite accurate.

The development of consciousness is an uncomfortable topic for most people, because one is forced to remove the projection. It is a well known phenomenon in psychology that if there is something dark within ourselves, or something that we are not able to access and integrate, we usually spot it in other people and either reject them or fall head over heels for them. We think that the emotion is directed outward, but it is actually our own selves that we are tackling. It is only after peeling away the projection, that we see our peers for what they are. Science does it all the time, and claims that what is valid here on earth is valid everywhere.

A similar process occurs with our peers in time... we project our consciousness backward, and think that people thought the way we did, completely neglecting the process of development. It is as if the rose would look back and see only leaves and thorns, and wonder how ugly the rest of the plant is. Jaynes and Vey look at the same process, and realize that there was a "pre-ego" consciousness. However, they both still project something backwards: hallucination. It is probably way too much for Jaynes to take in that the gods of Iliad were not hallucinations but realities, and they actually guided the "bicameral" man until he could develop his own ego, as reflected in the corpus callosum formation. Hallucination is an intrusion of that consciousness into modern way, where it is not suited, so we call it a hallucination. But the gods were indeed active in those times, and it was because man could perceive them. As his own ego formation went forward, his vision of them was lost. For the fire of ego to burn, the internal perceptions were the price. We are yet to regain that lost vision today.

Of course, a person who agrees that the heavy guidance for human activities was not a hallucination but real, as in the Iliad, projects the present ego backwards and screams: slavery! Because it is hard to ever imagine a situation where we were NOT able to think for ourselves and be self-conscious. Yet that was how it was, and pretty much all the descriptions of the gods using men as slaves, at least in the pre-Greek era, is a projection of the modern situation onto the past. Just as hallucination does not suit that era, no one can speak of slavery when there is no ego to suppress.

In Steiner's works, the forces flowing left to right build up the physical body, while the ones going right to left build up the "etheric body". With our current stress on the brain for all processes, we have come up with "left brain and right brain", or in Jaynes' words, the bicameral brain.
It is time.

tymeflyz
Indagator
Indagator
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:54 pm

Re: The Origin of Consciousness-Bicameral Mind

Post by tymeflyz » Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:29 am

Id have to agree with you in the source of the "voice" in as much as the term "hallucination" is a catch all for unexplained by a 3rd person in reference to the actual unknown (or as unidentified) hallucinators source. the Science's divorce or alienation of the nonphysical is just as much misdirection as religion is to the "believer" and the majority of THE priests [or insert your choice of 3rd party intermediary].But i really know so little i can only relate as much as my inner vision & intuition guide me.
Interesting synchronicity with the link below by Les Visible.
http://www.smoking-mirrors.com/2016/01/ ... night.html
Thank you Gopi for the reply . I now have more research to do re ; Iliad .

Post Reply