erikweijers wrote:
Julian Jaynes's 1976 book views consciousness as an acquired set of language skills, rather than an innate quality of humankind.
http://www.erikweijers.nl/pages/translations/the-origin-of-consciousness.phpI do not quite agree with the above quote.
My understanding of J.J.'s theory is that he viewed language and also written language as part of the preconditions (besides trade and certain catastrophic events) to help in the process of the breakdown of the bicameral mind. Only in this breakdown subjective human self-consciousness became possible.
Human language evolved prior to consciousness. But the use of language changed. Subjective feelings, doubts, emotions started to become expressed. Such expressions were not contained in the written language of human beings in the state of pre-consciousness (i.e., bicameral state). Then, prior to the breakdown of the bicameral mind, language had much more the sound of order and command.
I'm reading right now John Limber's essay (
Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness, Chapter 6). This author seems to struggle with the same problem. On the one hand he says: "As I see it now, Jaynes is simply talking about a representational mind, where language plays a very significant yet limited role in the content and operations of mind processes."
On the other hand he says: "To paraphrase Jaynes, language evolved in social interactions and became transformed over time into subjective consciousness." Same trap of misunderstanding!
I think the best approach to understand what Jaynes means with consciousness is to take very serious what he says is NOT consciousness: actually, all the activities of the subconscious mind, which for instance the great physicist Maxwell calls the source of his revolutionary recognitions in natural sciences.