hypothesis-three
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| hypothesis-three [2024/04/04 19:07] – brian.m | hypothesis-three [2024/05/08 14:47] (current) – brian.m | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | **Hypothesis Three: Dating the Transition from Bicameral Mentality to Consciousness** | + | ==== HYPOTHESIS THREE: DATING THE TRANSITION FROM BICAMERAL MENTALITY TO CONSCIOUSNESS ==== |
| - | Jaynes dated the birth of consciousness to around the end of the second millennium BCE. Due to the timing of settlement patterns, the transition most likely occurred later in the Americas (North, Mesoamerica, | + | **Theoretical Claim** |
| - | **The Breakdown | + | Jaynes dated the birth of consciousness to around the end of the second millennium BCE. Due to the timing of settlement patterns, the transition most likely occurred later in the Americas (North, Mesoamerica, |
| - | The success of bicamerality, | + | **Supporting Evidence** |
| - | **The Inherent Instability of Bicameral Kingdoms** | + | //The Inherent Instability of Bicameral Kingdoms |
| - | Jaynes noted that the impressive expansion of theocratic agricultural civilizations led to overpopulation. Such success | + | The success of bicamerality, |
| - | Once urbanized settlements reached a certain scale, bicameral governance became fragile. If for some reason the priestly hierarchy was destabilized, | + | Once urbanized settlements reached a certain scale, bicameral governance became fragile. If for some reason the priestly hierarchy was destabilized, |
| We associate authoritarian polities with militarism and police repression. But in preconscious civilizations, | We associate authoritarian polities with militarism and police repression. But in preconscious civilizations, | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| Increasingly crowded urbanized settlements and social complexity led to a confusion of voices, muddled authorization, | Increasingly crowded urbanized settlements and social complexity led to a confusion of voices, muddled authorization, | ||
| - | These go-betweens were parts of an individual’s preconscious mind communicating with each other. There was no executive | + | These go-betweens were parts of an individual’s preconscious mind communicating with each other. There was no analog “I” yet. |
| Also growing in importance were diviners and oracles who attempted to decipher the directives of the increasingly reticent deities who were retreating into the heavens. Other parts of what might be called an individual’s own psychosocial community of supernatural beings were demons who tormented and plagued people. | Also growing in importance were diviners and oracles who attempted to decipher the directives of the increasingly reticent deities who were retreating into the heavens. Other parts of what might be called an individual’s own psychosocial community of supernatural beings were demons who tormented and plagued people. | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| As an example of the transilience from bicamerality to the early stages of consciousness, | As an example of the transilience from bicamerality to the early stages of consciousness, | ||
| - | **Trade and Exchange Eventually Weakened the Bicameral Order** | + | //Trade and Exchange Eventually Weakened the Bicameral Order// |
| Interactions among individuals from various bicameral societies, assuming circumstances were stable and peaceful, were not in principle problematic. After all, in the same way no one questioned their own gods, no one doubted the deities of others; everywhere a sacred order reigned. Divine directives would be nonthreatening and friendly. Gifts may have been exchanged. | Interactions among individuals from various bicameral societies, assuming circumstances were stable and peaceful, were not in principle problematic. After all, in the same way no one questioned their own gods, no one doubted the deities of others; everywhere a sacred order reigned. Divine directives would be nonthreatening and friendly. Gifts may have been exchanged. | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| The extensive exchanging of goods among bicameral theocracies, | The extensive exchanging of goods among bicameral theocracies, | ||
| - | **Migration, Chaos, Conquest** | + | //Migration, Chaos, Conquest// |
| Jaynes never used the term “Late Bronze Age Collapse” of the 12th century BCE (whose causes are still debated). But he does describe the societal chaos—implosion of central authorities, | Jaynes never used the term “Late Bronze Age Collapse” of the 12th century BCE (whose causes are still debated). But he does describe the societal chaos—implosion of central authorities, | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| Most of the time preconscious people relied on automatic habit and time-tested routine to navigate through life’s minor twists and turns. Anything disturbingly novel or out of the ordinary elicited a divine message. If one’s larger hierarchical group became shaky and stored-up admonitory experiences were not up to the task, the once-reliable voices and visions of gods became contradictory and confusing. Societies, like dominoes, fell as anarchy spread and civilizations collapsed during the Late Bronze Age Collapse. Though the smooth management of bicameral systems rested on their divinely-authorized hierarchy, the authority of the gods was inherently limited. Theocracies suddenly crumbled without any known external cause. | Most of the time preconscious people relied on automatic habit and time-tested routine to navigate through life’s minor twists and turns. Anything disturbingly novel or out of the ordinary elicited a divine message. If one’s larger hierarchical group became shaky and stored-up admonitory experiences were not up to the task, the once-reliable voices and visions of gods became contradictory and confusing. Societies, like dominoes, fell as anarchy spread and civilizations collapsed during the Late Bronze Age Collapse. Though the smooth management of bicameral systems rested on their divinely-authorized hierarchy, the authority of the gods was inherently limited. Theocracies suddenly crumbled without any known external cause. | ||
| - | **Positing Internal Differences as the Cause of Consciousness** | + | //Positing Internal Differences as the Cause of Consciousness// |
| Before individuals could have an interior self, they must first nonconsciously, | Before individuals could have an interior self, they must first nonconsciously, | ||
| - | **Writing Undermined Divine Authority** | + | //Writing Undermined Divine Authority// |
| Writing undoubtedly enhanced the power of the gods, as evidenced by the laws of Hammurabi. However, the written word gradually eroded divine authority in the second millennium BCE. Sound, unlike visual perception, is a special perceptual modality. We cannot turn away or easily escape from incoming auditory stimuli. But once verbalizations of the gods were made silent by inscribing them into speechless stone, their commands, as well as the king's directives, could be avoided or ignored by being moved around. With writing the “speech” of the gods had a controllable location rather than an omnipresent power that elicited unquestioning obedience. | Writing undoubtedly enhanced the power of the gods, as evidenced by the laws of Hammurabi. However, the written word gradually eroded divine authority in the second millennium BCE. Sound, unlike visual perception, is a special perceptual modality. We cannot turn away or easily escape from incoming auditory stimuli. But once verbalizations of the gods were made silent by inscribing them into speechless stone, their commands, as well as the king's directives, could be avoided or ignored by being moved around. With writing the “speech” of the gods had a controllable location rather than an omnipresent power that elicited unquestioning obedience. | ||
| - | **The Origin of Narratization in Epics** | + | //Narratization in Epics// |
| Jaynes makes the strange claim that the gods—i.e., | Jaynes makes the strange claim that the gods—i.e., | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
| Originally writing was primarily an inventory device to keep track of stores and exchanges on a god’s estate (which was the core of a city-state’s economic redistribution system). But it then became a technique for recording god-related occurrences, | Originally writing was primarily an inventory device to keep track of stores and exchanges on a god’s estate (which was the core of a city-state’s economic redistribution system). But it then became a technique for recording god-related occurrences, | ||
| - | **The Origin of the Analog “I” in Deceit** | + | //The Origin of the Analog “I” in Deceit// |
| Learning to deceive others in a more sophisticated manner may have led to consciousness. Certainly, being one thing on the inside and another on the outside has great survival value and it ends up cultivating two selves: A visible, bodily self behaving one way and an interiorized “I” making plans to act in another way. Jaynes distinguishes between instrumental deception (short-term deceit) and treachery (long-term deceit). The former is seen among chimpanzees while the latter is possible but difficult among preconscious individuals. | Learning to deceive others in a more sophisticated manner may have led to consciousness. Certainly, being one thing on the inside and another on the outside has great survival value and it ends up cultivating two selves: A visible, bodily self behaving one way and an interiorized “I” making plans to act in another way. Jaynes distinguishes between instrumental deception (short-term deceit) and treachery (long-term deceit). The former is seen among chimpanzees while the latter is possible but difficult among preconscious individuals. | ||
| - | **Natural Selection** | + | //Natural Selection// |
| Though Jaynes mentioned natural selection as playing a minimal role in the origins of consciousness, | Though Jaynes mentioned natural selection as playing a minimal role in the origins of consciousness, | ||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
| Jaynes discussed the massive, civilization crushing effects of an eruption (or series of eruptions) of the volcano on the island of Thera (Santorini) as an indirect cause of bicamerality’s breakdown. However, in the 1990 Afterward to //The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind//, he de-emphasized its role, though he acknowledged it did play some part in the destabilizing of bicamerality. | Jaynes discussed the massive, civilization crushing effects of an eruption (or series of eruptions) of the volcano on the island of Thera (Santorini) as an indirect cause of bicamerality’s breakdown. However, in the 1990 Afterward to //The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind//, he de-emphasized its role, though he acknowledged it did play some part in the destabilizing of bicamerality. | ||
| + | // | ||
| + | |||
| + | Jaynes submitted that we need a “paleontology of consciousness” in which we can discover stratum by stratum how this metaphorically-built introcosmos we call subjective introspectable self-awareness was built up over the centuries. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Jaynes refers to mind‒words that would later come to mean something like consciousness “preconscious hypostases” (what is caused to stand under something). These are the assumed causes of action when other causes are no longer apparent. | ||
| + | |||
| + | When the gods began to fade into the mists of mythology individuals had not yet attributed their behavior directly to themselves the way a subjectively self-aware person would. Instead preconscious hypostases, or what we would call internal body sensations, were believed to cause people to act. The individual became a container possessed of nonperson but agentive entities. These eventually developed into the unified mental space in which an analog “I” dwelled and moved about. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Preconscious hypostases are “seats of reaction and responsibility” that emerged during the transition from the bicamerality to subjective consciousness. This evolution can be roughly divided into four phases: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Phase 1: Objective. In the bicameral age terms referred to simple external observations. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Phase 2: Internal. Terms come to mean things inside the body, especially certain internal sensations. The transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2 occurred at the beginning of bicameral mentality’s breakdown. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Phase 3: Subjective. Terms refer to processes that we would call mental; they have changed from internal stimuli believed to cause behavior to interiorized spaces where metaphorized actions occur. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Phase 4: Synthetic. The various hypostases unite into one conscious self that can introspect and self-reflect. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In pre-Socratic times physicality and concreteness characterized what we would call psychological activity (metaphrands) which was located in bodily organs (metaphiers). As an example of hypostases, consider ancient Greek. | ||
| + | Besides breath, blood, and the brain, cognition and emotion were identified with the spatial cavity of the chest: Phrenes may have originally meant “lungs” or “breathing” (localized in the midriff); thumos perhaps meant “internal sensations” (sometimes localized in the chest); etor designated heart; and kradie is from the beating “heart.” The metaphor of visibility is clear in the term nous (apparently from a verb meaning “to see”). A key term for intellectual activity was nous. It was not necessarily linked to psyche, but was a bodily entity located in the chest. | ||
hypothesis-three.1712275662.txt.gz · Last modified: 2024/04/04 19:07 by brian.m
