Bicameralism

[Speaker to Animals]

This theory could blow your mind. It's a two hour listening time for both episodes, but I think it's worth it:

https://www.stufftoblowyourmind.com/pod ... lism-1.htm

https://www.stufftoblowyourmind.com/pod ... lism-2.htm


Essentially, in the 1970s a psychologist published a theory that consciousness is a cultural invention that began in Mesopotamia only about 3,00 years ago. He argued that conscious humans and the earlier bicameral humans were very different beings. Bicameralism would be sort of like the trance state when you are driving and you realize you have driven some distance and negotiated all kinds of obstacles, but were not really conscious the entire time. It's that state for your entire life. If you encounter a novel situation, then your non-dominant lobe would come up with a solution and literally speak to you with instructions of how to act in a series of commands that ancient peoples thought were the gods. The transition period between the two modes he argues caused the bronze age collapse.

It sounds crazy, but he makes a really solid argument, and I have to admit there are some interesting points here. For instance, he argues you cannot find any evidence of conscious beings in works like the Illiad. When the Illiad describes battle, it speaks in terms of disjointed body parts, as if the body is an automoton. He describes the Old Testament of the story of the rise of conscious beings over the bicamerals. God speaks to Moses as "I am that I am", which is clearly conscious language. But the Egyptians, he argues, were bicamamerals.

The weirdest stuff happens when you look old accounts and texts and take them at face value. When some ancient text says something like "sing to me oh muse..", he argues that literally means he is asking the god or muse to provide him with the text (novelty and invention). When you read accounts of the Spanish conquest of the Inca, for example, the Spanish say things like the incas routinely converse with demons and sometimes the demons speak to them through their statues. We might interpret that as just defamation of a conquered people, but what if they were just conscious people confronting bicameralism? It would also explain why these people were so easy to fool. To carry on a deception like that, you have to be a conscious being, since you need some sense of agency and a conscious space in your mind to model what you would say or do if these lies were true, etc. But bicameral humans would be unable to do that.

I am not arguing for or against any of this, but I think it's a very interesting topic to discuss.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Built by sub-conscious troglodytes in a dream-state.

[Speaker to Animals]

Built by sub-conscious troglodytes in a dream-state.

*sigh*

Please don't post if you don't even understand it. At least learn about it first. The ignorant posting is really getting out of hand these days. Just go learn about it first.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)


Is it even possible to make this into an intellectual forum again?

[Montegriffo]

about 3,00 years ago.

Did you mean to say 3,000 or 30,000?
30,000 I could accept 3,000 is about as credible as bigfoot riding a dragon to Mars and back.

[SuburbanFarmer]

about 3,00 years ago.

Did you mean to say 3,000 or 30,000?
30,000 I could accept 3,000 is about as credible as bigfoot riding a dragon to Mars and back.

Goddammit, Monte. Nothing is more than 6,000 years old. NOTHING!!!!

[Speaker to Animals]

about 3,00 years ago.

Did you mean to say 3,000 or 30,000?
30,000 I could accept 3,000 is about as credible as bigfoot riding a dragon to Mars and back.

His argument was about 3,000 years ago (just before the Bronze Age Collapse).

He also argues this is why bicameral literature and myth is such fertile ground for psychologists regarding the unconscious: probably because you literally are being communicated to by an unconsciousness.

You really have to listen to it to understand. The second one goes in depth with the historical evidence. It's a very controversial theory, but it has some notable supporters, and some recent evidence seems to corroborate parts of it.

I think he has some kernel of truth here, but I have trouble believing that everybody literally heard the voices of gods speaking to them all the time. But, man, it really makes sense of some things.

[GloryofGreece]

Is Julian Jaynes easy enough to read and understand? In other words, is it readable or overly scholarly and filled with psychological terminology?

[Speaker to Animals]

Is Julian Jaynes easy enough to read and understand? In other words, is it readable or overly scholarly and filled with psychological terminology?

One of the best writers I have read. If he didn't go into psychology, he could have been a great novelist or playwright. His writing craft was excellent.

Whether or not you agree with him, I doubt you will dislike reading his book.

[GloryofGreece]

Does he think for example, the Aztecs and Incans were only bicameral and not fully conscious? I think i remember the podcast saying that he believed the "split" was around the Bronze Age but also mentioned other cultures and historical times so im not remembering correctly or not?

In my opinion one thing that didn't jive well as far as an explanation was why the change happened then...i mean it wasn't that more "complex" during the 13000 than it was in 2000 B.C. etc. And there were so many still living only a Neolithic lifestyle or even purely hunting/gathering etc. scattered all around the world. I mean did they experience this complexity change to, and if no why and when did they?

[Speaker to Animals]

Does he think for example, the Aztecs and Incans were only bicameral and not fully conscious? I think i remember the podcast saying that he believed the "split" was around the Bronze Age but also mentioned other cultures and historical times so im not remembering correctly or not?

In my opinion one thing that didn't jive well as far as an explanation was why the change happened then...i mean it wasn't that more "complex" during the 13000 than it was in 2000 B.C. etc. And there were so many still living only a Neolithic lifestyle or even purely hunting/gathering etc. scattered all around the world. I mean did they experience this complexity change to, and if no why and when did they?

Have not gotten to that part (phone dropped and screen is nonfunctional).. but I have listened to a lot of lectures on the topic and read a few books (it's an interest of mine). If we are to accept the fundamental premise of bicameralism, I think one could argue that consciousness already began on its own in Mesoamerica. You can certainly see evidence of it in people like Fasting Coyote. On the other hand, bicameralism makes A LOT of sense out of certain details about the conquest of South America. The Spanish accused them of constantly talking to demons, for instance. They talked to statues and heard replies the Spanish could not hear. It also makes sense of why the Inca were so incredibly naive and would fall for obvious traps (it was basically the same weird detail one encounters in the Illiad where the only account of a conscious person I can think of is Odysseus who bizarrely has the ability to trick people with the most trivial deceptions). To carry on a deceit, you really need a consciousness since you have to model how you would act if you were telling the truth all the time. That's not to say a bicameral human wouldn't be able to lie, but to carry it on like that would be difficult since they would lack the ability to create a model in their minds. I suppose the unconscious mind could do it (maybe). I have not gotten a good sense of how powerful he believed the other mind to have been.