I have just recently read the book and truthfully haven't even finished it yet. However, believing that the knowledge base that has made all this possible is very valuable to the future of mankind, I couldn't help but post my theory on the transition of the time period between Hammurabi to Tukulti. Keeping in mind that language is the ultimate source of all this, I believe my theories to be very compelling, but that being said, I am far from educated on the topic so take this as you may.
I would present that with the Code of Hammurabi came the concept of intent. When passing a law based judgement on someone, it's almost automatic to give them a chance to explain themselves. As we know, the first reason that bicamerality was not just predominant but rather a necessity is that it extends from the language of commands. This syntax, as I have recently noticed for example as still being dominant in relations for example between man and dog would have served the ultimate purpose of language up until then. With the invention of laws, would have increased the usage of questions, particularly it definitely would have massively increased the need for the question "why?"
Now, the answer from Iliad references would either be that their god had told them to, that an authority figure had told them to, or that it had originated in their thumos, phrenes etc. But consider now that the question "why?" is also a command of sorts, but a particular kind of command. In fact I would say it's more of a demand. By which I mean that over time it becomes something that can be commanded not only to an inferior, but also to a superior, for instance if a mass of the public is in question of one of the king's commands, eventually even he would be feel responsible to account for it. And if he did it because of his bicameral voice, although that would suffice to justify the act to the rest of the population, eventually he will feel inclined to ask his own voice why it commanded such.
And since the right hemisphere at this point only knows how to communicate in commands, the syntax of the language doesn't provide for any valid answers, all he would hear is nothing. I feel this is the explanation of Tukulti kneeling (in petition) and of the pointing finger being the bodily language of the question "why?" at the time
This would also explain the outbreak of fear based authority at the time as even to this day to justify something as having been done in order to avoid some sort of pain is considered much more just than if your intention had been to gain pleasure, in which case you generally come across as greedy or in the face of law, immoral.
Comments? Thoughts? I've only posted this concept on this here so I hope it reaches the right people. Feel free to share it however you want.
General discussion regarding Jaynes's theory of consciousness and the bicameral mind. Please only post your topic here only if it does not fit into a more specific category below.
1 post • Page 1 of 1