Wondering if anyone else has read.....

[RightIsWrong]

The Origin of Consciousness in the Break Down of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes?

I'm about 1/3 of the way through it and pretty enthralled with his hypothesis. I can definitely understand where he is coming from and think that there could be a strong chance of his suggestions being provable in the coming years if science continues along its current path.

Of course this would blow up the religious communities.....but they seem to have been doing enough blowing up of stuff over the years themselves to really be a concern.

For those that haven't read or heard about it....

This site dedicated to his teachings is a good starting point to find out more.

 

[AmpedSilence]

cliffs on the theme/assertion of the book?

 

[Oceandevi]

Do scientists have teachings?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: AmpedSilence
cliffs on the theme/assertion of the book?

From Wiki:

In psychology, bicameralism is a controversial theory which argues that the human brain once assumed a state known as a bicameral mind in which cognitive functions are divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking," and a second part which listens and obeys.

The term was coined by psychologist Julian Jaynes, who presented the idea in the 1976 book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, wherein he made the case that the bicameral mentality was the normal state of the human mind everywhere as recently as 3000 years ago. He used governmental bicameralism metaphorically to describe this state, exemplifying his theoretical postulate that language (and thus thought) expands by the use of metaphors.

 

[Vic]

Posts like the OP confuse me. You get off to a good start on an intellectual subject and then you blow it out of the water with a biased comment out of left field. Why would this blow up religious communities? The book is more than 30 years old...

And IIRC the prevailing scientific view of consciousness is that it evolved as a self-defense mechanism, i.e. the organism that is aware of itself will seek to preserve itself. The organism that preserves itself is more likely reproduce and pass on those genes.

However, discussions about "self talk" and how to limit it and its disharmoniousness go back thousands of years in many religions. What do you think the whole letting go of the self or being born again (depending on religion) is all about?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Vic
Posts like the OP confuse me. You get off to a good start on an intellectual subject and then you blow it out of the water with a biased comment out of left field. Why would this blow up religious communities? The book is more than 30 years old...

And IIRC the prevailing scientific view of consciousness is that it evolved as a self-defense mechanism, i.e. the organism that is aware of itself will seek to preserve itself. The organism that preserves itself is more likely reproduce and pass on those genes.

However, discussions about "self talk" and how to limit it and its disharmoniousness go back thousands of years in many religions. What do you think the whole letting go of the self or being born again (depending on religion) is all about?

My remarks about the religious communities being hit by this "revelation" was meant to infer that if somehow proven to be true through scientific advancements/discoveries (that God was nothing more than the left and right hemispheres trying to communicate with each other through "voices" inside our own heads), then their whole basis in this world would cease to exist.

The statement wasn't out of left field although the manner in which I presented it could certainly have been clearer.

To the point that I am currently in the book, Jaynes doesn't try to argue that we attempted to limit self talk but that we, through language (specifically metaphors and analogies) were able to share with others and become aware of our own thoughts and feelings and in essence squelched the voices without any real intent to do that.