Status
Available
Call number
Collections
Publication
Mariner Books (2000), Edition: 31578th, 512 pages
Description
At the heart of this classic, seminal book is Julian Jaynes's still-controversial thesis that human consciousness did not begin far back in animal evolution but instead is a learned process that came about only three thousand years ago and is still developing. The implications of this revolutionary scientific paradigm extend into virtually every aspect of our psychology, our history and culture, our religion -- and indeed our future.
User reviews
LibraryThing member JollyContrarian
What an exhilarating experience. This extraordinary book is improbable in a number of ways:
* improbable that a book with such a leaden (but totally descriptive!) title would ever have appealed to the mass market;
* improbable that such a "heavy" subject could be delivered in such light, graceful and
* improbable that, seeing as it asserts a novel and revolutionary scientific hypothesis, this book was distributed and published outside the usual academic channels;
* improbable that a single individual, apparently working more or less alone, authored such an imaginative, dazzling and, to be frank, brilliant, multi-discipline synthesis (I counted anthropology, philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, neurology, and classics among the unrelated disciplines Jaynes writes insightfully on); and
* improbable that, without the imprimatur of serious academic support (as I understand it Jaynes never had tenure, though he was friends with W. V. O. Quine, which doubtless stands for something), this book was even taken seriously, let alone proved as resistant to serious academic challenge (philosopher Ned Block had a half-hearted go, and there was a well publicised review by Daniel Dennett ("Julian Jaynes' Software Archaeology" - available online) but its critique was of emphasis rather than substance, and was otherwise largely complimentary. Other than that, Richard Dawkins (whose non-zoological opinions I have little time for) has spent a lazy couple of sides outlining the theory, only to feebly remark that the book "is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius ..." and while he suspects the former, can't muster the intellectual energy to decide so is "hedging his bets").
But there's one way it isn't improbable, and that's the most remarkable of all: its credibility. The thesis at first blush seems outlandish, yet in Jaynes capable hands it explains deftly and plausibly a number of cultural artefacts of antiquity, including religion itself, that traditional anthropology has been quite unable to sensibly account for, such as that our religious forebears, on their own account spoke with burning bushes, followed fiery pillars, buried their dead with food, gold and even wives, worshipped idols and thought they had daily interaction with gods. Traditional views tend to shrug shoulders and mark these phenomena down as "just some of the crazy stuff they used to do in the olden days" (exhibit a, by none other than Dick Dawkins: "all religious people are deluded") or worse, contrived some far less plausible explanations for them.
Jaynes takes these behavioural artefacts seriously, which seems only fair seeing as the ancients obviously did (not for the hell of it do you build 500 foot pyramids) and proposes a theory for why. Not just that they were (and are) deluded, but that their cognitive architecture was arranged that they heard voices, more or less exactly as schizophrenics do today. Not as a disease of the mind, but as an evolutionary strategy. On the stronger form of Jaynes' bicameral theory, human beings *were not conscious* before about 500A.D.
That is, to say the least, controversial. Jaynes states it upfront, at which point it seems nothing short of outrageous, then patiently, elegantly and compellingly sets out his case. His exegesis is always a pleasure to read, and truly enlightening at times (his discussion of the difference between "consciousness" and "perception" is fascinating - essentially it makes the point that a lot less of our cognitive experience is conscious than we generally apprehend (when Bertrand Russell exemplified consciousness in the the proposition "I see a table" Jaynes suggests "Russell was not conscious of a table, but of the argument he was writing about" - namely that he saw a table.) Jaynes routes consciousness, in the more prescriptive sense he uses it, in the origin of language, and in particular the metaphor. Again, a controversial view, but by no means inconsistent with the sort of outlook you might find in Wittgenstein, for example.
So is Jaynes right? In my view the wrong question to ask, of Jaynes, or any theory. A better question is whether it is helpful in describing our world, and I certainly think it is (you can never have too many tools in the toolbox).
Jaynes' particular elucidation of the bicameral mind may or may not be right, but dispositionally questions he ask seem to be ones in need of an answer, and the anthropological evidence for a need for clear direction and certainty in an uncertain world which was provided through a actual dialogue with apprehended gods (rather than the weak and decidedly figurative religious experiences humans tend to experience these days) seems well answered by the hallucinatory model, and the explanation of consciousness's origin in the failure of the hallucinatory model to deal with the encroaching size and complexity of civilisation in the millennium before Christ seems oddly plausible. Consciousness, then, emerged like one of Steve Gould's spandrels from an existing cognitive architecture which had developed contemplating something quite different. I dare say Dickie Dawkins wouldn't like that idea too much, either.
And for the essentialists, it gets worse: hard core reductionists will shudder at the thought wherein Jaynes turns his attention to vestiges of the bicameral world in the modern day. Religion, you'll not be surprised to hear, is proposed as just such a vestige - the striving of mankind for certainty in the absence of compelling voices instructing how to act - but so is science. Jaynes is typically eloquent as he closes his book:
"For what is the nature of this blessing of certainty that science so devoutly demands in its very Jacob-like wrestling with nature? Why should we demand that the universe make itself clear to us? Why should we care?
"... Science, then, for all its pomp and factness, is not unlike some of the more easily disparaged outbreaks of pseudoreligions. In this period of transition from its religious basis, science often shares with the celestial maps of astrology, or a hundred other irrationalisms, the same nostalgia for the Final Answer, the One Truth, the Single Cause."
As are almost all the verbal constructions in this 450 page tome, that is beautifully put.
* improbable that a book with such a leaden (but totally descriptive!) title would ever have appealed to the mass market;
* improbable that such a "heavy" subject could be delivered in such light, graceful and
Show More
playful prose; * improbable that, seeing as it asserts a novel and revolutionary scientific hypothesis, this book was distributed and published outside the usual academic channels;
* improbable that a single individual, apparently working more or less alone, authored such an imaginative, dazzling and, to be frank, brilliant, multi-discipline synthesis (I counted anthropology, philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, neurology, and classics among the unrelated disciplines Jaynes writes insightfully on); and
* improbable that, without the imprimatur of serious academic support (as I understand it Jaynes never had tenure, though he was friends with W. V. O. Quine, which doubtless stands for something), this book was even taken seriously, let alone proved as resistant to serious academic challenge (philosopher Ned Block had a half-hearted go, and there was a well publicised review by Daniel Dennett ("Julian Jaynes' Software Archaeology" - available online) but its critique was of emphasis rather than substance, and was otherwise largely complimentary. Other than that, Richard Dawkins (whose non-zoological opinions I have little time for) has spent a lazy couple of sides outlining the theory, only to feebly remark that the book "is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius ..." and while he suspects the former, can't muster the intellectual energy to decide so is "hedging his bets").
But there's one way it isn't improbable, and that's the most remarkable of all: its credibility. The thesis at first blush seems outlandish, yet in Jaynes capable hands it explains deftly and plausibly a number of cultural artefacts of antiquity, including religion itself, that traditional anthropology has been quite unable to sensibly account for, such as that our religious forebears, on their own account spoke with burning bushes, followed fiery pillars, buried their dead with food, gold and even wives, worshipped idols and thought they had daily interaction with gods. Traditional views tend to shrug shoulders and mark these phenomena down as "just some of the crazy stuff they used to do in the olden days" (exhibit a, by none other than Dick Dawkins: "all religious people are deluded") or worse, contrived some far less plausible explanations for them.
Jaynes takes these behavioural artefacts seriously, which seems only fair seeing as the ancients obviously did (not for the hell of it do you build 500 foot pyramids) and proposes a theory for why. Not just that they were (and are) deluded, but that their cognitive architecture was arranged that they heard voices, more or less exactly as schizophrenics do today. Not as a disease of the mind, but as an evolutionary strategy. On the stronger form of Jaynes' bicameral theory, human beings *were not conscious* before about 500A.D.
That is, to say the least, controversial. Jaynes states it upfront, at which point it seems nothing short of outrageous, then patiently, elegantly and compellingly sets out his case. His exegesis is always a pleasure to read, and truly enlightening at times (his discussion of the difference between "consciousness" and "perception" is fascinating - essentially it makes the point that a lot less of our cognitive experience is conscious than we generally apprehend (when Bertrand Russell exemplified consciousness in the the proposition "I see a table" Jaynes suggests "Russell was not conscious of a table, but of the argument he was writing about" - namely that he saw a table.) Jaynes routes consciousness, in the more prescriptive sense he uses it, in the origin of language, and in particular the metaphor. Again, a controversial view, but by no means inconsistent with the sort of outlook you might find in Wittgenstein, for example.
So is Jaynes right? In my view the wrong question to ask, of Jaynes, or any theory. A better question is whether it is helpful in describing our world, and I certainly think it is (you can never have too many tools in the toolbox).
Jaynes' particular elucidation of the bicameral mind may or may not be right, but dispositionally questions he ask seem to be ones in need of an answer, and the anthropological evidence for a need for clear direction and certainty in an uncertain world which was provided through a actual dialogue with apprehended gods (rather than the weak and decidedly figurative religious experiences humans tend to experience these days) seems well answered by the hallucinatory model, and the explanation of consciousness's origin in the failure of the hallucinatory model to deal with the encroaching size and complexity of civilisation in the millennium before Christ seems oddly plausible. Consciousness, then, emerged like one of Steve Gould's spandrels from an existing cognitive architecture which had developed contemplating something quite different. I dare say Dickie Dawkins wouldn't like that idea too much, either.
And for the essentialists, it gets worse: hard core reductionists will shudder at the thought wherein Jaynes turns his attention to vestiges of the bicameral world in the modern day. Religion, you'll not be surprised to hear, is proposed as just such a vestige - the striving of mankind for certainty in the absence of compelling voices instructing how to act - but so is science. Jaynes is typically eloquent as he closes his book:
"For what is the nature of this blessing of certainty that science so devoutly demands in its very Jacob-like wrestling with nature? Why should we demand that the universe make itself clear to us? Why should we care?
"... Science, then, for all its pomp and factness, is not unlike some of the more easily disparaged outbreaks of pseudoreligions. In this period of transition from its religious basis, science often shares with the celestial maps of astrology, or a hundred other irrationalisms, the same nostalgia for the Final Answer, the One Truth, the Single Cause."
As are almost all the verbal constructions in this 450 page tome, that is beautifully put.
Show Less
LibraryThing member mattresslessness
It's stunt theory, pure and simple. A fairly hefty catalogue could be made of Jaynes' reach exceeding his grasp, but you don't go to an Evel Knievel show and complain about reckless driving - you go to gawp at an act of staggering audaciousness. Sure, maybe in this case Jaynes missed the landing
Show More
ramp and ended up crumpled in a heap, but that doesn't mean everybody didn't have a damn good time. Show Less
LibraryThing member dougb56586
According to the author, language is a prerequisite of consciousness, and civilization is possible without consciousness. In fact, the author says that earlier than about 3000 years ago, the ancient civilizations of the world (e.g. Egypt, Sumeria, Greece and others) were populated with
Prior to about 1000 BC, the human mind was “bicameral” - a term the author coined to describe pre-conscious humans. The term “bicameral” refers to a particular way in which the brain operates without consciousness. Jaynes describes the “bicameral” mind this way:
“Volition, planning, initiative is organized with no consciousness whatever and then 'told' to the individual in his familiar language, sometimes with the visual aura of a familiar friend or authority figure or 'god', or sometimes as a voice alone. The individual obeyed these hallucinated voices because he could not 'see' what to do by himself.” (p. 75)
The book begins by reviewing various theories of consciousness. The author finds all of these to be inadequate, and then proposes to try to understand consciousness by looking at what it is not. Chapter 1 provides a very interesting analysis of many ordinary human mental activities which do not involve consciousness, and in which sometimes, consciousness would be an impediment.
The “breakdown”, mentioned in the title, is a consequence of the difficulty for the bicameral mind, relative to the conscious mind, to adapt to quickly changing environmental conditions. The author believed that initially the bicameral mind made civilization possible (p. 149), where he defines civilization as,
“Civilization is the art of living in a town of such size that everyone does not know everyone else.” (p. 149)
However, bicameral civilizations were strongly hierarchical in structure (ch. 1). These civilizations would undergo frequent collapse when environmental conditions changed quickly, and then the society would have to rebuild itself. The author believes that around 1000 BC, social changes occurred so quickly, that bicameral mind yielded to conscious mind which is better able to adapt to frequent or larger changes.
A large portion of the book is devoted to demonstrating the transition from bicameral civilization to conscious civilization using evidence found in ancient texts of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern civilizations of 2500 to 4000 years ago. In particular, the author focuses on the Homeric poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey. Other ancient texts are also analyzed as well as customs, such as the Greek oracles.
This is clearly a very original work, whether correct or not, and there are many ideas suggested through out (such as the significance of metaphors to consciousness). A weakness of the original 1977 edition was the lack of a final summary chapter tying the many ideas together. This was corrected to some extent in the 1990 edition in which an Afterword is added. In this Afterword, the author lists and summarizes 4 main hypotheses of the book:
1. that Consciousness is based on language,
2. that before consciousness developed, the human mind functioned in a way that the author calls “the bicameral mind”,
3. that Consciousness originated no earlier than about 1000 BC,
4. that the double brain is significant in understanding how the mind functions.
I had difficulty following the author's explanation of last hypothesis. I would have guessed that the bicameral mind was somehow related to the two hemispheres of the brain. However, Jaynes writes: “The two hemispheres of the brain are not the bicameral mind but its present neurological model.”
Following this summary of the original book, the author seems to expand on the book with more thoughts on the implications of consciousness ( “The Cognitive Explosion”, “The Self”, “From Affect to Emotion”, “From Fear to Anxiety”, “From Shame to Guilt”, “From Mating to Sex”).
This book is incredibly interesting, albeit difficult to fully understand for us non-experts in both psychology and ancient Middle Eastern literature and civilization. And the author conceded that his ideas are only hypotheses that he is not yet able to prove. But for anyone interesting in the mystery of consciousness, it is highly recommended.
Aside:
With respect to Jaynes' claim that language is a prerequisite of consciousness, a similar idea is suggested in the Yoga Sutras of Pantanjali. Since the Yoga Sutra is written in Sanskrit, it must be translated into English. Numerous translators have provided slightly different results. The sutras of interest are 1.6 and 1.9. Yoga Sutra 1.6 identifies five types of mental activity. One of them is, “conceptualization” (Hartranft) or “imagination” (Shearer and Desikachar). This type of mental activity is then defined in Sutra 1.9 as “based on linguistic knowledge, not contact with real things” (Hartranft), “thought based by an image conjured by words ...” (Shearer), and “... comprehension of an object based only on words and expressions ...” (Desikachar).
Show More
pre-consciousness people.Prior to about 1000 BC, the human mind was “bicameral” - a term the author coined to describe pre-conscious humans. The term “bicameral” refers to a particular way in which the brain operates without consciousness. Jaynes describes the “bicameral” mind this way:
“Volition, planning, initiative is organized with no consciousness whatever and then 'told' to the individual in his familiar language, sometimes with the visual aura of a familiar friend or authority figure or 'god', or sometimes as a voice alone. The individual obeyed these hallucinated voices because he could not 'see' what to do by himself.” (p. 75)
The book begins by reviewing various theories of consciousness. The author finds all of these to be inadequate, and then proposes to try to understand consciousness by looking at what it is not. Chapter 1 provides a very interesting analysis of many ordinary human mental activities which do not involve consciousness, and in which sometimes, consciousness would be an impediment.
The “breakdown”, mentioned in the title, is a consequence of the difficulty for the bicameral mind, relative to the conscious mind, to adapt to quickly changing environmental conditions. The author believed that initially the bicameral mind made civilization possible (p. 149), where he defines civilization as,
“Civilization is the art of living in a town of such size that everyone does not know everyone else.” (p. 149)
However, bicameral civilizations were strongly hierarchical in structure (ch. 1). These civilizations would undergo frequent collapse when environmental conditions changed quickly, and then the society would have to rebuild itself. The author believes that around 1000 BC, social changes occurred so quickly, that bicameral mind yielded to conscious mind which is better able to adapt to frequent or larger changes.
A large portion of the book is devoted to demonstrating the transition from bicameral civilization to conscious civilization using evidence found in ancient texts of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern civilizations of 2500 to 4000 years ago. In particular, the author focuses on the Homeric poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey. Other ancient texts are also analyzed as well as customs, such as the Greek oracles.
This is clearly a very original work, whether correct or not, and there are many ideas suggested through out (such as the significance of metaphors to consciousness). A weakness of the original 1977 edition was the lack of a final summary chapter tying the many ideas together. This was corrected to some extent in the 1990 edition in which an Afterword is added. In this Afterword, the author lists and summarizes 4 main hypotheses of the book:
1. that Consciousness is based on language,
2. that before consciousness developed, the human mind functioned in a way that the author calls “the bicameral mind”,
3. that Consciousness originated no earlier than about 1000 BC,
4. that the double brain is significant in understanding how the mind functions.
I had difficulty following the author's explanation of last hypothesis. I would have guessed that the bicameral mind was somehow related to the two hemispheres of the brain. However, Jaynes writes: “The two hemispheres of the brain are not the bicameral mind but its present neurological model.”
Following this summary of the original book, the author seems to expand on the book with more thoughts on the implications of consciousness ( “The Cognitive Explosion”, “The Self”, “From Affect to Emotion”, “From Fear to Anxiety”, “From Shame to Guilt”, “From Mating to Sex”).
This book is incredibly interesting, albeit difficult to fully understand for us non-experts in both psychology and ancient Middle Eastern literature and civilization. And the author conceded that his ideas are only hypotheses that he is not yet able to prove. But for anyone interesting in the mystery of consciousness, it is highly recommended.
Aside:
With respect to Jaynes' claim that language is a prerequisite of consciousness, a similar idea is suggested in the Yoga Sutras of Pantanjali. Since the Yoga Sutra is written in Sanskrit, it must be translated into English. Numerous translators have provided slightly different results. The sutras of interest are 1.6 and 1.9. Yoga Sutra 1.6 identifies five types of mental activity. One of them is, “conceptualization” (Hartranft) or “imagination” (Shearer and Desikachar). This type of mental activity is then defined in Sutra 1.9 as “based on linguistic knowledge, not contact with real things” (Hartranft), “thought based by an image conjured by words ...” (Shearer), and “... comprehension of an object based only on words and expressions ...” (Desikachar).
Show Less
LibraryThing member Atomicmutant
I'm just going to chime in and subtitle this for personal purposes, "The Origin of Super Coolness in the Mutant Mind". As others say on this site, I don't know whether to go with this thesis or not, and I do believe it's untestable. But what a weight of circumstantial evidence! Good, lucid writing
Show More
and an amazing breadth of knowledge goes a long way towards making this SEEM plausible. I just finished reading it, so I really need to do further reading and see what impact, if any, this has had. I suspect strict science has shrugged it's collective shoulders. Normally, that would be enough for me to throw this on the junk pile, but it's too darn compelling and interesting. I may read it again. Show Less
LibraryThing member sailingjonah
If it turned out that Jaynes' masterpiece was completely fiction, in my opinion it would still be a must read. In fact, perhaps it would be more popular, as the reader wouldn't have to face the possibility that Jaynes' theory may be correct, or at least on the right track. In many ways, it reminds
For those wondering what Jaynes' fantastical theory involves, here's a brief description. His theory states that only a few thousand years ago, the natural state of the human mind included frequent auditory hallucinations that directed one's actions. The theory says that after the development of language, the right brain utilized the efficient encoding system to send auditory signals to the left brain, which carried out the actions--a system very similar to modern-day schizophrenics. Jaynes states that these hallucinations were the precursor to our modern conscious mind, our internal dialog that we have with ourselves, for example, when a decision needs to be made. "Should I pick up some milk on my way home, or is there enough to last until tomorrow?" "Should I buy my ticket now, or wait to see if the fares get lower?"
In our modern age, some people report hearing a voice that directs their actions when faced with especially stressful situations. The book "Touching the Void" by Joe Simpson is an example of this phenomenon and an amazing and inspiring story of survival and human resiliency. If you find Jaynes' book to be a daunting read, I recommend reading Simpson's book first or simultaneously to give you a real-life example of what Jaynes is talking about.
Show More
me of String Theory in Physics. Both theories are criticized as being untestable, and people generally have a difficult time accepting a theory that seems to drastically differ from the world they're accustomed to. On the other hand, like String Theory, Jaynes' theory of consciousness just explains too much to be completely wrong. If someone decided to write a work of fiction, starting from the premise of Jaynes' theory, the world they invented would likely be very similar to the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Greece, Middle America, etc.For those wondering what Jaynes' fantastical theory involves, here's a brief description. His theory states that only a few thousand years ago, the natural state of the human mind included frequent auditory hallucinations that directed one's actions. The theory says that after the development of language, the right brain utilized the efficient encoding system to send auditory signals to the left brain, which carried out the actions--a system very similar to modern-day schizophrenics. Jaynes states that these hallucinations were the precursor to our modern conscious mind, our internal dialog that we have with ourselves, for example, when a decision needs to be made. "Should I pick up some milk on my way home, or is there enough to last until tomorrow?" "Should I buy my ticket now, or wait to see if the fares get lower?"
In our modern age, some people report hearing a voice that directs their actions when faced with especially stressful situations. The book "Touching the Void" by Joe Simpson is an example of this phenomenon and an amazing and inspiring story of survival and human resiliency. If you find Jaynes' book to be a daunting read, I recommend reading Simpson's book first or simultaneously to give you a real-life example of what Jaynes is talking about.
Show Less
LibraryThing member shieldwolf
We often Speak about left brain thinking and right brain thinking. (The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind) by psychologist Julian Jaynes. Mid 1970's was when the 1st edition came out when I read it, but reprints are still available. His Argument (Theory), now termed
----------
he made the case that a bicameral mentality, that is to say a mental state in which there are two distinct sections of consciousness, was the normal and ubiquitous state of the human mind as recently as 3000 years ago. He used governmental bicameralism to metaphorically describe such a state, in which the experiences and memories of the right hemisphere of the brain are transmitted to the left hemisphere via auditory hallucinations. This mental model was replaced by the conscious mode of thought, which Jaynes argues is grounded in the acquisition of metaphorical language. The idea that language is a necessary component of subjective consciousness and more abstract forms of thinking has been gaining acceptance in recent years. According to Jaynes, ancient people in the bicameral state would experience the world in a manner that has similarities to that of a modern-day schizophrenic. Rather than making conscious evaluations in novel or unexpected situations, the person would hallucinate a voice or "god" giving admonitory advice or commands, and obey these voices without question; one would not be at all conscious of one's own thought processes per se.Jaynes asserts that until roughly the times written about in Homer's Iliad, humans did not generally have the self-awareness characteristic of consciousness as most people experience it today. Rather, Jaynes argued that the bicameral individual was guided by mental commands believed to be issued by external "gods"—the commands which were so often recorded in ancient myths, legends and historical accounts; these commands were however emanating from individuals' own minds. This is exemplified not only in the commands given to characters in ancient epics but also the very muses of Greek mythology which "sang" the poems: Jaynes argues that while later interpretations see the muses as a simple personification of creative inspiration, the ancients literally heard muses as the direct source of their music and poetry.
Jaynes inferred that these "voices" came from the right brain counterparts of the left brain language centres—specifically, the counterparts to Wernicke's area and Broca's area. These regions are somewhat dormant in the right brains of most modern humans, but Jaynes noted that some studies show that auditory hallucinations correspond to increased activity in these areas of the brain.
____________
All this got me thinking. That Dolphins don't have hemispherical brains. Yet they have language (not only vocal communication but body language as well) so now I am contemplating if, in fact, dolphins have "Self Consciousness" or self awareness. We know that chimpanzees do Not. (I look in the mirror and know that what I see is me) "I Think therefore I am" and yes I have this internal dialog that goes on and an Intuitive "sense" that guides my "conscious" Most of the Eastern, and many of the Western Religions argue that if we cease this dialog and seek the nothingness, that we will evolve even further from Self Consciousness to Cosmic Consciousness. That mystical state of all knowing (Nirvana or whatever).AND just where does language fit into all this.
Show More
Bicameralism, basic goes like this:----------
he made the case that a bicameral mentality, that is to say a mental state in which there are two distinct sections of consciousness, was the normal and ubiquitous state of the human mind as recently as 3000 years ago. He used governmental bicameralism to metaphorically describe such a state, in which the experiences and memories of the right hemisphere of the brain are transmitted to the left hemisphere via auditory hallucinations. This mental model was replaced by the conscious mode of thought, which Jaynes argues is grounded in the acquisition of metaphorical language. The idea that language is a necessary component of subjective consciousness and more abstract forms of thinking has been gaining acceptance in recent years. According to Jaynes, ancient people in the bicameral state would experience the world in a manner that has similarities to that of a modern-day schizophrenic. Rather than making conscious evaluations in novel or unexpected situations, the person would hallucinate a voice or "god" giving admonitory advice or commands, and obey these voices without question; one would not be at all conscious of one's own thought processes per se.Jaynes asserts that until roughly the times written about in Homer's Iliad, humans did not generally have the self-awareness characteristic of consciousness as most people experience it today. Rather, Jaynes argued that the bicameral individual was guided by mental commands believed to be issued by external "gods"—the commands which were so often recorded in ancient myths, legends and historical accounts; these commands were however emanating from individuals' own minds. This is exemplified not only in the commands given to characters in ancient epics but also the very muses of Greek mythology which "sang" the poems: Jaynes argues that while later interpretations see the muses as a simple personification of creative inspiration, the ancients literally heard muses as the direct source of their music and poetry.
Jaynes inferred that these "voices" came from the right brain counterparts of the left brain language centres—specifically, the counterparts to Wernicke's area and Broca's area. These regions are somewhat dormant in the right brains of most modern humans, but Jaynes noted that some studies show that auditory hallucinations correspond to increased activity in these areas of the brain.
____________
All this got me thinking. That Dolphins don't have hemispherical brains. Yet they have language (not only vocal communication but body language as well) so now I am contemplating if, in fact, dolphins have "Self Consciousness" or self awareness. We know that chimpanzees do Not. (I look in the mirror and know that what I see is me) "I Think therefore I am" and yes I have this internal dialog that goes on and an Intuitive "sense" that guides my "conscious" Most of the Eastern, and many of the Western Religions argue that if we cease this dialog and seek the nothingness, that we will evolve even further from Self Consciousness to Cosmic Consciousness. That mystical state of all knowing (Nirvana or whatever).AND just where does language fit into all this.
Show Less
LibraryThing member mbattenberg
One of the most daring books on consciousness written! I suspect much of it is now totally outdated (I'll have to re-read it!), but it got me going intellectually, and put consciousness back into the brain.
LibraryThing member Valfierno
This is a very peculiar book. I've read it twice now, and I think it is quite a valuable study, but only with the important disclaimer THIS IS NOT A WORK OF SCIENCE.
Origin of Consciousness is fascinating work of erudite speculation. Jaynes proposes and explores the utterly bizarre premise that the
That said, I do think Jaynes is a very smart guy exploring a fascinating topic from a very interesting perspective. As a work of literature it's highly recommended, but as a treatise on human consciousness to be taken as gospel, it's rather not.
Origin of Consciousness is fascinating work of erudite speculation. Jaynes proposes and explores the utterly bizarre premise that the
Show More
rise of what we now call consciousness, or self-awareness arose far later than is usually believed, well after the rise and fall of the earliest civilizations to create permanent works of culture. His evidence comes from paleolinguistics, and archeology, but he draws far too sweeping conclusions from them _if_ we opt to take them seriously. Close readings of the Homer, parts of the Old Testament, etc. provide interesting insights into the collective mind of man, but we should probably take with a grain of salt the claim that Ezekiel is the work of an author essentially suffering (as every other person alive supposedly was) from what we'd now term paranoid schizophrenia.That said, I do think Jaynes is a very smart guy exploring a fascinating topic from a very interesting perspective. As a work of literature it's highly recommended, but as a treatise on human consciousness to be taken as gospel, it's rather not.
Show Less
LibraryThing member shawnd
This book can be summed up in one word: Wacky. And amusing. It continues to amuse me and a close friend that Princeton has (or had) a professor who argues that prior to 300 or 400 BC, humans had no consciousness, per se, but were automatons directed by otherworldly beings who could speak directions
The book is similar to Godel, Escher, Bach, for example, in that it ties together a series of genres and topics to weave it's theories. Archaeology, Neuro-linguistics, literature, psychology, etymology, history are all piled together to argue, compellingly, that perhaps we ought to take our historical record at face value and not interpolate into the historical record our own conscious contemporary psychology. The author's skill at calling on these various disciplines makes the book amusing and delightful read as long as the reader can withhold their bewilderment or skepticism at what is being postulated. The author has the chutzpah to write a forceful book that starts by dissecting what metaphors are so they can proceed to use them to describe what a lack of consciousness of self is--amazing. Heavy doses of The Iliad and neurophysiology (be ready to learn about Wernicke's Area in the brain)--where else can you get this all in one place? Do yourself a favor and read this book--it's unlikely a book like this will ever be published again that does not revert to using truly implausible events like crop circles, ancient Mayan civilizations, and Knights of the Templar to prove itself. As a theory, 2 stars. As an amusing wander through the path through history, psychology, Greek Literature, 4 stars.
Show More
directly into the brains of humans. Hello? Imagine if the Discovery Channel or History Channel had a television show explaining that between the time man originated until Christ, people were robots to voices of some Deity or series of Gods. Considering that our society is reticent--especially with today's college campus academics--to acknowledge anything mystical or not scientifically proven, the fact that this professor is implying that being independent, self-will driven beings is a recent phenomenon is bizarre. The book is similar to Godel, Escher, Bach, for example, in that it ties together a series of genres and topics to weave it's theories. Archaeology, Neuro-linguistics, literature, psychology, etymology, history are all piled together to argue, compellingly, that perhaps we ought to take our historical record at face value and not interpolate into the historical record our own conscious contemporary psychology. The author's skill at calling on these various disciplines makes the book amusing and delightful read as long as the reader can withhold their bewilderment or skepticism at what is being postulated. The author has the chutzpah to write a forceful book that starts by dissecting what metaphors are so they can proceed to use them to describe what a lack of consciousness of self is--amazing. Heavy doses of The Iliad and neurophysiology (be ready to learn about Wernicke's Area in the brain)--where else can you get this all in one place? Do yourself a favor and read this book--it's unlikely a book like this will ever be published again that does not revert to using truly implausible events like crop circles, ancient Mayan civilizations, and Knights of the Templar to prove itself. As a theory, 2 stars. As an amusing wander through the path through history, psychology, Greek Literature, 4 stars.
Show Less
LibraryThing member math_foo
I finished this book several months ago and have been since attempting to figure out how I would review it.
Whether the book's thesis concerning the origin of consciousness is true or not, it presents a compelling and original view of how ancient humans thought. The author readily admits the
This book has also radically changed my views and extended my understanding of religion.
Whether the book's thesis concerning the origin of consciousness is true or not, it presents a compelling and original view of how ancient humans thought. The author readily admits the
Show More
difficulty in confirming his theory; but I did find what evidence there was to be good.This book has also radically changed my views and extended my understanding of religion.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Pauntley
Jaynes argues that consciousness, and self consciousness, are recent cultural developments. His argument has been comprehensively critiqued, debunked and dismissed. It remains, however, a marvellously stimulating book, filled with sharp insights, which will survive many of the well founded, and
Show More
tedious, objections of his critics. Take and enjoy it as a stimulant to the imagination and as an enjoyable tour of Homeric and other ancient literature. Show Less
LibraryThing member nicdevera
Flawed, unfalsifiable, scary. Probably some of this is right, and that's a big deal.
LibraryThing member Paul_S
I have not read something that has changed my mind and the view of the world as much as this in years. I understand this hypothesis is probably impossible to prove one way or another but it has amazing explanatory power. It makes all of history fall into place for me. I find the chapters dealing
Show More
with modern brain dysfunctions and hypnosis as a window to the bicameral mode less convincing but still thought-provoking. Despite the profundity of the subject it's written in an extremely approachable manner and requires no specialist knowledge. I'd recommend it to everyone, there's not that many books that offer a completely new view of the (history of the) world. Show Less
LibraryThing member glitwack
I'm not saying he was right. I'm just saying the book was awesome.
LibraryThing member blake.rosser
A compelling thesis that left me intrigued if not overwhelmingly convinced. Jaynes certainly provides for an interesting reading of the Iliad. And it definitely makes me want to go back and peruse the Bible, an urge I can't say I've had that often in my life.
One of my favorite things about the
I think the most convincing part of his entire theory for me is about the schizophrenics. There really is no good theory for why they behave the way they do, and positing a flexible genetic spectrum where some people (wacked-out schizos) are 100% bicameral and others are 0% provides as good of an explanation as any. I personally like to think that people we label as "crazy" might actually have something interesting to teach or tell us.
One of my favorite things about the
Show More
book was Jaynes' writing style -- eminently approachable and humble, as if he was freely admitting that he doesn't have that good of a case. I can appreciate that. Of course, when he then proceeded to rely on the evidence he had just discarded as weak, the book got a little difficult to swallow.I think the most convincing part of his entire theory for me is about the schizophrenics. There really is no good theory for why they behave the way they do, and positing a flexible genetic spectrum where some people (wacked-out schizos) are 100% bicameral and others are 0% provides as good of an explanation as any. I personally like to think that people we label as "crazy" might actually have something interesting to teach or tell us.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jbushnell
This book argues that the inhabitants of early civilizations had no subjective consciousness but rather existed in a state of constant hallucination. Improbable, but Jaynes makes his case with panache. Brings in brain chemistry, Biblical and literary scholarship, and a compelling history of ancient
Show More
religious practice, idolatry, magic, oracles, and ecstatic states. Fascinating. Show Less
LibraryThing member honeyrococo
A suprisingly good and interesting book that I originally stole from the public library in 7th grade to show to my friends, thinking, "This has to be the longest title in the history of the world." The statute of limitations for this crime is definitely up (quarter of a century ago), and the
Show More
library probably has been closed due to budget cuts, but I still have the book. Show Less
LibraryThing member bozon
I read this when it originally was published. At that time I was studying Greek philosophy, and enamored with the Greek's search for arete, a vital concept at the time. I wondered then, and it still crosses my mind lo these several decades, if Jaynes' premises could be linked to a search for arete.
Show More
The classical Greeks had lost that immediate link, but it was still part of their cultural memory. Show Less
LibraryThing member le.vert.galant
A fascinating thesis that shines through some tedious pages of necessary evidence to support the central idea.
LibraryThing member kencf0618
Great theory, but AFAIK it hasn't borne fruit. We do owe it to the Sumerians for having invented beer, though, so let's hear it for the voices of the gods!
LibraryThing member 460200
Extraordinary book; Asks many important questions about how our mind has evolved.
LibraryThing member waitingtoderail
An absolutely fascinating work. Although there are times where it seems that large trucks can be driven through the holes in his arguments, the overall picture presented makes this quite convincing that Jaynes's theories (particularly the main one, which is that humans only gained consciousness
Show More
3,000 - 4,000 years ago, acting only based on voices they heard coming from the right hemisphere of their brains), are worth further study. Show Less
LibraryThing member louie1
Incredible theory of the evolution of the brain...Very optumistic veiw of rapid change and evolution
LibraryThing member zbigniew
One of the books which I remember how fascinating it was when I read it 15 years ago
LibraryThing member hermit_9
Very accessible and well thought-out. It is a fascinating theory that whole civilizations could be ruled by hallucination.
Awards
National Book Award (Finalist — 1978)
David Bowie's Top 100 (1976)
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
1976
Physical description
512 p.; 6 inches
ISBN
0618057072 / 9780618057078
UPC
046442057073