Timon Krause - Mentalist - Thesis

[Scrampy]

Hello,

I've been recently reading Timon Krause's Masters Thesis on the topic of Hypnotism & Consciousness in which he relies heavily on the definition of Consciousness used by Julian Jaynes.

I think readers of this forum would find the insights very interesting: https://studenttheses.universiteitleide ... 58576/view

Any thoughts on the subject are welcome, if there's anybody still about!

~ Scrampy

[benjamindavidsteele]

I'm in the middle of working on another project right now. I'm helping someone with a Master's paper they're writing. I'm quite preoccupied at the moment and it might be a while before I disentangle myself.

So, I don't have the time to tackle reading what you linked. But I am curious. Could you summarize the piece, explain a bit of the Jaynesian aspects, and/or maybe offer some useful quotes? As time allows, I'll respond.

[Scrampy]

Sure thing Ben,

I'll take some notes and share the main points when I'm done. It'll be good to help me solidify my understanding too.

Hope your projects are going well

~ Scrampy

[Scrampy]

The beginning of the thesis covers many definitions of consciousness and clarifies distinctions between them - I'd imagine you (Benjamin) are quite well versed in this so you could even skip the first half or more if you just wanted to get to the guts of the essay.

Essentially, the author is clarifying how differently Jaynes sees consciousness to the commonly held idea: that consciousness is inherent to human nature.

Here are a couple of snippets from further into the article that I think you might find interesting:

6. Jaynesian Consciousness and Hypnosis
For the purposes of this thesis, the most important novelty in Jaynes’s theory is the idea that
A-Consciousness (or J-Con, for all their similarities) is a social-culturally learned feature and,
thus, may be unlearned again. Furthermore, Jaynes presents us with a reasonable if somewhat
speculative alternative to how our mental facilities may be used lacking A-Consciousness:
that of a bicameral mind.

(Emphasis added by me)

There is a quote from Marcel Kuijsten, who I believe has featured in a number of podcast episodes:

As Marcel Kuijsten notes: “the prevailing view of
consciousness as biologically innate is likely inaccurate and thus leads to confusion about the
nature of hypnosis” (Kuijsten 2012, 213).

Krause then notes similarities between the state of hypnosis and the state of bicameralism:

Hypnotic subjects’ paralogic compliance may be likened to the subduing of access to certain
reflections and ideas. The subject seems to be unable to access ideas and reflections that
would make the ongoings seem nonsensical to a person not engaged n the hypnotic process.
Thus, in hypnosis we see a core principle of modern consciousness to be missing, or subdued,
while the subjects seem to find themselves, again, in a state similar to bicameral man.

There is mention of the "General Bicameral Paradigm" and a list of its parts:

1) Archaic Authorisation
2) The Collective Cognitive Imperative
3) The Induction
4) The Trance

This is the information I was seeking in the thesis in the first place.

I was looking for more explanation of the paradigm, and expansion, particularly on item number 2: The Collective Cognitive Imperative - which seems to hold some great influence in society today. (I've often asserted that a paradigm shift in thoughts/beliefs needs to occur before any major change will occur in society)

This subject, and the connection to hypnosis, seems to hold some promise of an explanation, and perhaps a solution to the problem.

Krause spends the rest of the essay clarifying the content of this bicameral paradigm, and how it relates to modern consciousness and his proposed explanation of hypnosis.

I will leave any further quotes and open any discussion to any interested reader.

~ Scrampy

[benjamindavidsteele]

@Scrampy - I'm sorry for the delayed response. The project I was working on is wrapping up. I might have some free time this week. I'll be particularly curious to learn more about the collective cognitive imperative. As I think I mentioned, this point has long been less clear in my mind and I don't see it come up as often in discussions or scholarly papers. Anyway, similar to the point you made about paradigm shifts, it makes me think of John Adam's observation of a revolution of the mind that preceded the political revolution.

According to John Demos, in early colonial America, there was still a cyclical notion of time. The original meaning of 'revolution' was from astrology and it meant a cyclical return. Many of those into the late colonial period were still hoping for a return to the past, with regaining the rights of Englishmen. But it was largely a nostalgic fantasy. This cyclical worldview was one of those traces left over from the bicameral mentality. It's a sense of the past being inseparable from the present, including past selves such as ancestral spirits being sill present.

The American Revolution was an unintentional rupture. It was probably inevitable, though. The bicameral mentality (or, more generally, the bundle theory of mind) requires external boundaries to maintain it. This is what feudalism did. The boundaries of social identity were strongly and clearly delineated. An example of that was beating the bounds, a practice that seems to have it's origins in ancient Rome and northern Europe. The enclosure movement slowly dismantled those boundaries, starting in the 1300s but not being a major impact on society and identity until the 1700s and 1800s.

The modern hyper-individualistic variation of Jaynesian consciousness (what Brian McVeigh calls the propertied self) required a change to those external boundaries[/url]. The idea of property became increasingly privatized and individualized. The boundaries that once defined a communal self now were constrained even further in having dismantled it into increasingly smaller and isolated identities. Assisting in this change was likely the shift from psychedelics to addictive stimulants.

On another note, there has been a lot of unfortunate misunderstanding about Jaynesian consciousness (or J-consciousness). A different term probably should've been used. It leads to much pointless critique and debate. Even in Jaynesian scholarship, there is a lack of clarity on this issue. Jaynes himself seems to have defined it so narrowly as to exclude most of human experience. This is what so many critics sense as problematic and I might agree with them. There is obviously more to awareness. This is obvious to anyone who has ever experienced 'altered states' (meditation, lucid dreaming, psychedelic tripping, etc). Jaynesian consciousness (i.e., ego theory of mind) is a thin veneer over the broader human psyche.