Monday, April 25, 2011

Conscious Language II - Redux

Julian Jaynes The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind;
"I have endeavored to examine the record of a huge time span to reveal the plausibility that man and his early civilizations had a profoundly different mentality from our own, that in fact men and women were not conscious as are we, were not responsible for their actions, and therefore cannot be given the credit or blame for anything that was done over these vast millenia of time; that instead each person had a part of his nervous system that was divine, by which he was ordered about like any slave, a voice or voices which indeed were what we call volition and empowered what they commanded and were related to the hallucinated voices of others in a carefully established hierarchy"
Technology, agriculture, astronomy, engineering, the infrastructural systematization of human life as we experience it today was established prior to and in the absence of subjective speech. Essentially Jaynes makes a compelling case that archaic man was possessed of a hive mentality. The human hive mentality was mediated by an archaic and non-subjective form of speech (gods) emanating from the right cortical hemisphere (instead of our contemporary left hemispheric subjective speech function). When the human-hives controlled by the voices of the gods became large enough and/or when they encountered one another and began trading goods, (before money or writing - symbols of energy and language respectively) then conditions arose under which some of the control mechanisms of the archaic hive mind (voices of the gods) were weakened and modified (hieroglyphics are replaced by hieratic and cuneiform writing) and a proto-subjective speech construct instantiated in this writing became gradually established in the left cortical hemisphere.
"What is writing? Writing proceeds from pictures of visual events (hieroglyphics) to symbols of phonetic events. And that is an amazing transformation! Writing of the latter type, as on the present page, is meant to tell the reader something he does not know. But, the closer writing is to the former (hieroglyphics), the more it is primarily a mnemonic device to release information which the reader already has."
In Views From the Real World "God the Word" Gurdjieff is recorded as saying;
"At the beginning of every religion we find an affirmation of the existance of God the Word and the Word-God. One teaching says that when the world was still nothing, there were emanations, there was God the Word. God the Word is the world. God said "Let it be so," and sent the Father and the Son. He is always sending the Father and the Son, and once, he sent the Holy Ghost."
Ibid; New York, February 20, 1924 the following remarks;
"It is impossible to be impartial, even when nothing touches you on the raw. Such is the law, such is the human psyche. We shall speak later about the why and wherefore of it. In the meantime we shall formulate it thus:

1) the human machine has something that does not allow it to remain impartial, that is, to reason calmly and objectively, without being touched on the raw, and 2) at times it is possible to free oneself from this feature by special efforts.

Concerning this second point I am asking you now to wish to, and to make, this effort, in order that our conversation should not be like all other conversations in ordinary life, that is, mere pouring from the empty into the void, but should be productive both for yourselves and for me. I called usual conversations pouring from the empty into the void. And indeed, think seriously about the long time each of us has lived in the world and the many conversations we have had! Ask yourselves, look into yourselves - have all those conversations ever led to anything? Do you know anything as surely and indubitably as, for instance, that two and two make four? If you search sincerely in yourselves and give a sincere answer, you will say they have not led to anything.

So our common sense can conclude from past experience that, since this way of talking has so far led to nothing, it will lead to nothing in the future. Even if a man were to live a hundred years, the result would be the same. Consequently, we must look for the cause of this and if possible change it. Our purpose, then, is to find this cause; so, from the first steps, we shall try to alter our way of carrying on a conversation.

Last time we spoke a little about the Law of Three. I said that this law is everywhere and in everything. It is also found in conversation. For instance, if people talk, one person affirms, another denies. If they don't argue, nothing comes of those affirmations and negations. If they argue, a new result is produced, that is, a new conception unlike that of the man who affirmed or that of the one who denied.

This too is a law, for one cannot altogether say that your former conversations never brought any results. There has been a result, but this result has not been for you but for something or someone outside you.

But now we speak of results in us, or of those we wish to have in us. So, instead of this law acting through us, outside us, we wish to bring it within ourselves, for ourselves. And in order to achieve this we have merely to change the field of action of this law.

What you have done so far when you affirmed, denied and argued with others, I want you now to do with yourselves, so that the results you get may not be objective, as they have been so far, but subjective."
Since most important and complex behavior (technology and civilizing infrastructure) was done prior to modern subjective speech - and this behavior was mediated by the gods - could it be that the "higher influences" always working within us and toward which the work seeks a path and a method for our reintegration - could these "higher influences" be anything other than the "gods" of antiquity?

Having realized our chattering nothingness, doesn't it become glaringly evident that the "gods" continue to work through, and one is inclined to say, despite "us"? Doesn't it lend a certain overwhelming magicalness to our world to understand it as the machination of an intelligence in us but not us? Taken as such, the manifold artifacts of "higher influence" are ubiquitous and hidden in plain sight all around us. You need only reflect on the vast "unconscious" machinery of the city in which "you" live to appreciate this fact.


nanakwame said...

You want to make fun of others religious leanings or belief in Shamanism by saying they piss in bottle and gave it out as divine, then turn around and use gurdjieff as an example of objective reasoning, who in many quarters is nothing but another mystic.

You are riding a very thin line better to be with this and say so:

Ray Kurzweil, the influential technologist, came to the Palace of Fine Arts theater in San Francisco a few days ago to promote his vision of “the Singularity.” One attendee admiringly described it as “the cult Rapture of the Nerds.”
It was a much more fitting prelude to the Easter holidays than Mr. Kurzweil would like to think. The Singularity, as he explains it, is a point in the near future when rapidly escalating technological advances will allow the most evolved humans (i.e., Mr. Kurzweil and his early-adopting followers) to incorporate technology into their bodies. Doing so will
allow them to live hundreds of years and perhaps forever. Mr. Kurzweil wrote a book on the subject in 2005 and has been proselytizing ever since. The quick sell: Join me in outsmarting death.
This vision has obvious appeal to the Silicon Valley set, which holds sacred the belief that technology can solve most any problem; Google’s co-founder Larry Page, and a long list of other tech celebrities, helped establish Singularity University, where rich or deep-thinking techies try to get an edge on the future.

New Agers, too, find something alluring in the idea of man transcending the mere self and attaching to a more grandiose vision of the human project. NYTIMES

AND did I miss you saying that the expansion of the Universe was not true?
This isn't against you personally, but in a time of growing confusion and flirting with fascism, we need to view all notions of current mindsets. I don't read various religious views and concept to follow sheepishly but to understand the mind and consciousness, and the shadows of what is present future of our greatest tool our brain. There is a vicious and growing line of reasoning that states we can eradicate foolishness and stupidity among us for many reasons. That frightens me at its core. Just like most folks now don't believe in a hell, we better stop this BS about heaven on earth, and whom belongs.

CNu said...

You want to make fun of others religious leanings or belief in Shamanism by saying they piss in bottle and gave it out as divine, then turn around and use gurdjieff as an example of objective reasoning, who in many quarters is nothing but another mystic.

You are riding a very thin line better to be with this and say so:


Nana, do you find it the least bit awkward or peculiar that you feel compelled to simultaneously have me validate your beliefs (nowhere documented or specified in anything remotely approaching explanatory detail) - while constantly attempting weak and unsupported ad hominem attacks on sources whose written expressions I make transparently, freely, and directly available for review and response at this blog?

Elite Donor Level Conflicts Openly Waged On The National Political Stage

thehill  |   House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) has demanded the U.S. Chamber of Commerce answer questions about th...