Julian Jaynes Society Forum

Julian Jaynes Society Discussion Forum: Exploring Consciousness and the Bicameral Mind Theory since 1997

** PLEASE NOTE: Due to spam, registration is now BY REQUEST ONLY. To register (free), please e-mail info "at" julianjaynes "dot" org with your desired username; you will receive a login and temporary password. ** julianjaynes.org        
It is currently Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:12 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Bicameral Mind Theory in contrast with other theories
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:11 am
Posts: 11
When studying Bicameral Mind theory one is compelled to examine the mentality of the ancient world in a very different light. In so doing one has to try to avoid the temptation to project his current conscious mindset onto a theoretically non conscious era.

This, however, was not an issue for many other Anthropologists who arrived at their own theories of primitive magic, religion, animism, totemism, etc. without the any bicameral rationales. Sir James Frazier, for example, offers a very different picture of the ancient culture and psyche. He places a great deal of emphasis on soul and the peculiar beliefs and rituals that the ancients used to protect and preserve the soul. Jaynes theory, by contrast, hinges on the importance of hallucinatory voices not death, beliefs, etc.

Did Jaynes attempt to reevaluate other anthropological conceptions of the man living in his bicameral era and beyond?

How do notions of the soul, the afterlife, reincarnation, etc. square with bicameral mind theory?

If accepted, does bicameral mind theory effectively rule out many of these other ideas regarding man prior the conscious era?

If so, how did anthropologists like Frazier arrive at such mistaken conclusions?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bicameral Mind Theory in contrast with other theories
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:28 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:03 pm
Posts: 314
The short answer would probably be that the ideas of Frazier and others were heavily influenced by preconceptions about the existence of the soul, afterlife, etc., while Jaynes was able to approach the behaviors observed in tribes and ancient civilizations with more objectivity. (See Stove's chapter "The Oracles and Their Cessation" in Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness for further discussion of this.)

As a scientist, Jaynes most likely did not see objective evidence for concepts such as the soul, an afterlife, or reincarnation, but would argue that concepts like life after death and gods arose in large part because of the continued hearing of the voice of deceased leaders and relatives.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bicameral Mind Theory in contrast with other theories
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:31 pm
Posts: 1
Nice surprise about this shorter form. Can you tell us what it is you are talking/writing about?
Has any info. about this shorter form been posted before (and i just missed it)?
:roll:

_________________
If need some help for www.testking.org guide, then get the latest exams.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


Gods, Voices and the Bicameral Mind               Julian Jaynes Collection               Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness               The Minds of the Bible               Abstracts from the 2013 Julian Jaynes Society Conference on Consciousness and Bicameral Studies



Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007~ phpBB Group