The Bicameral Mind and Poetry

[Mack A. Damia]

Bicameral mentality is a hypothesis in psychology and neuroscience
which argues that the human mind once operated in a state in which
cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which
appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys—a
bicameral mind, and that the evolutionary breakdown of this division
gave rise to consciousness in humans. The term was coined by Julian
Jaynes, who presented the idea in his 1976 book "The Origin of
Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", wherein he
made the case that a bicameral mentality was the normal and ubiquitous
state of the human mind as recently as 3,000 years ago, near the end
of the Mediterranean bronze age. (Wiki)

The human mind operated in a kind of schizophrenic mode. Prehistoric
humans had individual gods who spoke to them and who guided their
actions.

https://www.samwoolfe.com/2013/08/julian-jaynes-theory-of-bicameral-mind.html

"Of Poetry and Music"

The first poets were gods. Poetry began with the bicameral mind. The
god-side of our ancient mentality, at least in a certain period of
history, usually or perhaps always spoke in verse. This means that
most men at one time, throughout the day, were hearing poetry (of a
sort) composed and spoken within their own minds.

The evidence is, of course, only inferential. It is that all of those
individuals who remained bicameral into the conscious age, when
speaking of or from the divine side of their minds, spoke in poetry.
The great epics of Greece were of course heard and spoken by the
aoidoi as poetry. The ancient writings of Mesopotamia and Egypt are
darkened with our ignorance of how such languages were pronounced; but
with such assurances in transliteration as we can muster, such
writings when spoken were also poetry. In India, the oldest literature
is the Veda, which were dictated by gods to the rishi or prophets;
these too were poetry. Oracles spoke poetry. From time to time, their
utterances from Delphi and elsewhere were written down, and every one
of them that survives as more than a simple phrase is in dactylic
hexameter, just as were the epics. The Hebrew prophets also, when
relaying the hallucinated utterance of Yahweh, were often poets,
though their scribes did not in every case preserve such speech in
verse.

As the bicameral mind recedes further into history, and the oracles
reach their fifth term, there are exceptions. Poetic utterance by the
oracles breaks down here and there. The oracle at Delphi, for example,
in the first century A.D. evidently spoke in both verse and prose, the
latter to be put into verse by poets in the service of the temples.1
But the very impulse to transpose oracular prose back into dactylic
hexameters is, I suggest, a part of the nostalgia for the divine in
this late period; it demonstrates again that metered verse had been
the rule previously. Even later, some oracles still spoke exclusively
in dactylic hexameters. Tacitus, for example, visited the oracle of
Apollo at Claros about A.D. 100 and described how the entranced priest
listened to his decision-seeking petitioners; he then.....

. . . swallows a draught of water from a mysterious spring and —
though ignorant generally of writing and of meters — delivers his
response in set verses.

Poetry then was divine knowledge. And after the breakdown of the
bicameral mind, poetry was the sound and tenor of authorization.
Poetry commanded where prose could only ask. It felt good. In the
wanderings of the Hebrews after the exodus from Egypt, it was the
sacred shrine that was carried before the multitude and followed by
the people, but it was the poetry of Moses that determined when they
would start and when stop, where they would go and where stay.

https://www.julianjaynes.org/resources/books/ooc/en/of-poetry-and-music/

[Spam-I-Am]

So…?

[Mack A. Damia]

“Sing to me of the man, Muse, the man of twists and turns, driven time
and again off course, once he had plundered the hallowed heights of
Troy.” (Homer)

[Spam-I-Am]

“Gosh, Shazam & Golly.” (Gomer)

[Michael Pendragon]

We have a rule regarding the posting of links and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack. And that rule is that when we post someone else's essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post an *original* comment or question regarding it.

I would be happy to discuss the relation between the hypothetical "bicameral mind" and poetry with you, but I cannot do so unless you first offer your own theories and opinions on the subject.

One of our "members" (Isaac Chase, who posts under the name of his nephew, "Jordy") has gotten himself almost unilaterally blocked for repeatedly posting links without the requisite original commentary accompanying them. Don't be a "Jordy."

So please tell us *your* thoughts on the topic at hand, and we'll see if any interesting discussions develop from there.

[Mack A. Damia]

It is a theory and very popular among some; there is even a Julian
Jaynes Society.

https://www.julianjaynes.org/

I generally don't post ideas, etc. without links and/or extracts in
support. I have been fascinated with Jaynes' theory for many decades,
and I challenge others to appreciate it. Much of his reasoning
originates from ancient poetry, and I thought this group would be
interested in examining it.

Vestiges of the bicameral mind in action have existed throughout the
ages. I am thinking particulary of William Blake's poetry.
Understanding Jaynes is an intellectual endeavor, and naysayers tend
to ridicule it. Posting an idea or theory is merely posting an idea
or theory for comment, but you are free to ignore it.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 11:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Spam-I-Am

Sorry to hear it.

"Every Night & every Morn
Some to Misery are Born
Every Morn and every Night
Some are Born to sweet delight
Some are Born to sweet delight
Some are Born to Endless Night"
- William Blake

[Spam-I-Am]

“A word of kindness is seldom spoken in vain, while witty sayings
are as easily lost as the pearls slipping from a broken string.”
– George Dennison Prentice

[Mack A. Damia]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 14:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Spam-I-Am

"You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than
you can with a kind word alone."
- Al Capone

[Michael Pendragon]

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 4:44:38 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 12:15:29 -0700 (PDT), Michael Pendragon
> <michaelmalef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >We have a rule regarding the posting of links and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack. And that rule is that when we post someone else's essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post an *original* comment or question regarding it.
> >
> >I would be happy to discuss the relation between the hypothetical "bicameral mind" and poetry with you, but I cannot do so unless you first offer your own theories and opinions on the subject.
> >
> >One of our "members" (Isaac Chase, who posts under the name of his nephew, "Jordy") has gotten himself almost unilaterally blocked for repeatedly posting links without the requisite original commentary accompanying them. Don't be a "Jordy."
> >
> >So please tell us *your* thoughts on the topic at hand, and we'll see if any interesting discussions develop from there.
> It is a theory and very popular among some; there is even a Julian
> Jaynes Society.
>
> https://www.julianjaynes.org/
>
> I generally don't post ideas, etc. without links and/or extracts in
> support.

A good idea -- and one which I thoroughly support.

Of course, there is a world of difference between posting one's original ideas *with* supporting source material and simply posting the support material without the original idea.

> I have been fascinated with Jaynes' theory for many decades,
> and I challenge others to appreciate it. Much of his reasoning
> originates from ancient poetry, and I thought this group would be
> interested in examining it.

I was unfamiliar with Jaynes' theory, and upon reading the article, have found it to be interesting, but flawed.

It sounds (slightly) similar to a theory which I do support: that of the correlation between schizotypal thought processes and creativity. However, I find it hard to a accept the premise that human consciousness (as we know it today) did not exist 3,000 years ago.

Jaynes has used examples of human interaction with gods from ancient texts to support his claims, but he fails to take several important points into account. Predominant among these is the fact that ancient texts from the Biblical "Old Testament" to the "Iliad" and "Odyssey" of Homer are set at least several hundred years in the past. Homer is believed to have lived (if, indeed, he was a real person) about 900 -700 BCE, and the Trojan War to have taken place roughly 400 years earlier. Homer (or whoever was responsible for writing the epics attributed to him) possessed "meta-consciousness," as such a "sense of self" would have been necessary to write *any* story. The act of writing presupposes a distinction between oneself and one's audience. Similarly, the "Old Testament" is estimated to have been written from about 1200 to 165 BCE. If so, the earliest Biblical books would have been written slightly over 3,000 years ago, which would place the dawn of consciousness (selfhood/meta-consciousness) at 3222 years ago (or earlier). The story of the "Fall of Man" (from "Genesis") can be read as a parable of the birth of individual conscious -- implying that meta-consciousness had been around far longer than the 3,000 years assigned to it by Jaynes.

> Vestiges of the bicameral mind in action have existed throughout the
> ages. I am thinking particulary of William Blake's poetry.

William Blake considered himself a "prophet," and, as such, would correspond to Jaynes' concept of the numinous nature of creative (or schizotypal) thought. This, however, does not imply either that Blake's mind was bicameral or that bicameral minds had ever existed. Jaynes' theory for numinous thought is far from the only explanation. C.G. Jung's theory of the Collective Unconscious is well worth looking into for a more probable explanation of Blake. According to Jung, the Collective Unconscious is a collection of *living* archetypes that is shared by all of humankind. These archetypes *create* the basic myths that have formed the spiritual/religious philosophies of people from various cultures and times. The correspondences between Blake's "Greater Prophecies" and Jungian concepts of the sub-conscious and unconscious psyches are astounding ("Urizen," a.k.a., "Your Reason" representing ego consciousness -- the predominance of which constitutes our present "fallen" state).

> Understanding Jaynes is an intellectual endeavor, and naysayers tend
> to ridicule it.

Jaynes' theory ultimately fails because, like various forms of religion, it is built upon a false premise: that the left and right hemispheres of the human brain were totally disconnected from one another (although it self-contradictingly maintains that the right hemisphere was able to directly communicate with the left). If Jayne is subject to ridicule, this basic misconception is why.

> Posting an idea or theory is merely posting an idea
> or theory for comment, but you are free to ignore it.

Posting an idea or theory for comment is fine -- provided that you provide your own thoughts regarding it (as you've done here). Simply posting a topic for others to discuss is an imposition on the other members. We are not databases programmed to discuss arcane topics at will. Discussions of this nature require both research and thought. If we are going to invest our time and effort in expressing our thoughts on a given subject, we expect some interaction in return. This is why we attempt to enforce the aforementioned rule that links/excerpts must be accompanied by original commentary.

Regarding the bicameral mind and poetry:

Jaynes holds that poets once "were hearing poetry (of a sort) composed and spoken within their own minds. Jaynes is grievously mistaken on this point. Some poets, myself included, hear this poetry today. I refer to us as "Muse Poets," because our poetry arises from the depths of our sub-conscious minds exactly as if it were being dictated by a god or, in my experience, goddess. This however, by no means signifies that I have a bicameral mind (nor even vestiges of one). It mean that I am able to tap into my sub-conscious mind, and to communicate with it more directly than the average individual. And while I may very well be prejudiced on the subject, I feel that poetry derived from such sub-conscious revelations is far richer in symbolic material, and consequently mulit-layered interpretation, than that derived solely from the ego-consciousness as a form of intellectual exercise. IOW: A true poet doesn't say "I think I'll try to write a Décima poem today; he says "Sing, Heav'nly Muse!"

[Mack A. Damia]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 15:14:06 -0700 (PDT), Michael Pendragon

<michaelmalef...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 4:44:38 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 12:15:29 -0700 (PDT), Michael Pendragon
>> <michaelmalef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >We have a rule regarding the posting of links and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack. And that rule is that when we post someone else's essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post an *original* comment or question regarding it.
>> >
>> >I would be happy to discuss the relation between the hypothetical "bicameral mind" and poetry with you, but I cannot do so unless you first offer your own theories and opinions on the subject.
>> >
>> >One of our "members" (Isaac Chase, who posts under the name of his nephew, "Jordy") has gotten himself almost unilaterally blocked for repeatedly posting links without the requisite original commentary accompanying them. Don't be a "Jordy."
>> >
>> >So please tell us *your* thoughts on the topic at hand, and we'll see if any interesting discussions develop from there.
>> It is a theory and very popular among some; there is even a Julian
>> Jaynes Society.
>>
>> https://www.julianjaynes.org/
>>
>> I generally don't post ideas, etc. without links and/or extracts in
>> support.
>
>A good idea -- and one which I thoroughly support.
>
>Of course, there is a world of difference between posting one's original ideas *with* supporting source material and simply posting the support material without the original idea.
>
>> I have been fascinated with Jaynes' theory for many decades,
>> and I challenge others to appreciate it. Much of his reasoning
>> originates from ancient poetry, and I thought this group would be
>> interested in examining it.
>
>I was unfamiliar with Jaynes' theory, and upon reading the article, have found it to be interesting, but flawed.
>
>It sounds (slightly) similar to a theory which I do support: that of the correlation between schizotypal thought processes and creativity. However, I find it hard to a accept the premise that human consciousness (as we know it today) did not exist 3,000 years ago.
>
>Jaynes has used examples of human interaction with gods from ancient texts to support his claims, but he fails to take several important points into account. Predominant among these is the fact that ancient texts from the Biblical "Old Testament" to the "Iliad" and "Odyssey" of Homer are set at least several hundred years in the past. Homer is believed to have lived (if, indeed, he was a real person) about 900 -700 BCE, and the Trojan War to have taken place roughly 400 years earlier. Homer (or whoever was responsible for writing the epics attributed to him) possessed "meta-consciousness," as such a "sense of self" would have been necessary to write *any* story. The act of writing presupposes a distinction between oneself and one's audience. Similarly, the "Old Testament" is estimated to have been written from about 1200 to 165 BCE. If so, the earliest Biblical books would have been written slightly over 3,000 years ago, which would place the dawn of consciousness
>(selfhood/meta-consciousness) at 3222 years ago (or earlier). The story of the "Fall of Man" (from "Genesis") can be read as a parable of the birth of individual conscious -- implying that meta-consciousness had been around far longer than the 3,000 years assigned to it by Jaynes.

The gods were always correct. There was a divine order of life,
ritualized and untouched by major disasters. As Jaynes puts it: "But
the second millennium B.C. was not to last that way. Wars,
catastrophes, national migrations became its central themes. Chaos
darkened the holy brightnesses of the unconscious world. Hierarchies
crumpled. And between the act and its divine source came the shadow,
the pause that profaned, the dreadful loosening that made the gods
unhappy, recriminatory, jealous. Until, finally, the screening off of
their tyranny was effected by the invention on the basis of language
of an analog space with an analog ‘I’. The careful elaborate
structures of the bicameral mind had been shaken into consciousness."

>> Vestiges of the bicameral mind in action have existed throughout the
>> ages. I am thinking particulary of William Blake's poetry.
>
>William Blake considered himself a "prophet," and, as such, would correspond to Jaynes' concept of the numinous nature of creative (or schizotypal) thought. This, however, does not imply either that Blake's mind was bicameral or that bicameral minds had ever existed. Jaynes' theory for numinous thought is far from the only explanation. C.G. Jung's theory of the Collective Unconscious is well worth looking into for a more probable explanation of Blake. According to Jung, the Collective Unconscious is a collection of *living* archetypes that is shared by all of humankind. These archetypes *create* the basic myths that have formed the spiritual/religious philosophies of people from various cultures and times. The correspondences between Blake's "Greater Prophecies" and Jungian concepts of the sub-conscious and unconscious psyches are astounding ("Urizen," a.k.a., "Your Reason" representing ego consciousness -- the predominance of which constitutes our present "fallen" state).

I wonder how Jung would respond to bicameralism. There is a kind of
relationship: His ideas of "archetypes" - the persona, the shadow,
the anima or animus and the self. These are a result of collective,
shared ancestral memories that may persist in art, literature and
religion but aren't obvious to the eye.

>> Understanding Jaynes is an intellectual endeavor, and naysayers tend
>> to ridicule it.
>
>Jaynes' theory ultimately fails because, like various forms of religion, it is built upon a false premise: that the left and right hemispheres of the human brain were totally disconnected from one another (although it self-contradictingly maintains that the right hemisphere was able to directly communicate with the left). If Jayne is subject to ridicule, this basic misconception is why.

But you cannot say that with any certainty. If you believe in
evolution, then you should believe in the evolution of the mind,
unless you think that Adam and Eve suddenly appeared in Eden with
fully-functioning modern minds.

>> Posting an idea or theory is merely posting an idea
>> or theory for comment, but you are free to ignore it.
>
>Posting an idea or theory for comment is fine -- provided that you provide your own thoughts regarding it (as you've done here). Simply posting a topic for others to discuss is an imposition on the other members. We are not databases programmed to discuss arcane topics at will. Discussions of this nature require both research and thought. If we are going to invest our time and effort in expressing our thoughts on a given subject, we expect some interaction in return. This is why we attempt to enforce the aforementioned rule that links/excerpts must be accompanied by original commentary.

I have noticed that there is some flaming going on among some of the
members of the group. In that respect, the group is not special. BTW,
do you have an FAQ?

>Regarding the bicameral mind and poetry:
>
>Jaynes holds that poets once "were hearing poetry (of a sort) composed and spoken within their own minds. Jaynes is grievously mistaken on this point. Some poets, myself included, hear this poetry today. I refer to us as "Muse Poets," because our poetry arises from the depths of our sub-conscious minds exactly as if it were being dictated by a god or, in my experience, goddess. This however, by no means signifies that I have a bicameral mind (nor even vestiges of one). It mean that I am able to tap into my sub-conscious mind, and to communicate with it more directly than the average individual. And while I may very well be prejudiced on the subject, I feel that poetry derived from such sub-conscious revelations is far richer in symbolic material, and consequently mulit-layered interpretation, than that derived solely from the ego-consciousness as a form of intellectual exercise. IOW: A true poet doesn't say "I think I'll try to write a Décima poem today; he says "Sing,
>Heav'nly Muse!"

Their personal gods were speaking to them. It doesn't get any more
complicated than that. Where do ideas come from? Where does music
come from? Where does poetry come from? The answer is, "We don't
know." We may have ideas, but they are just theories, too. How do
we know that the sub-conscious doesn't contains the gods of the
bicameral mind?

[Will Dockery]

Also known as the Muses.

[General-Zod]

> .. . . swallows a draught of water from a mysterious spring and —

> though ignorant generally of writing and of meters — delivers his
> response in set verses.

> Poetry then was divine knowledge. And after the breakdown of the
> bicameral mind, poetry was the sound and tenor of authorization.
> Poetry commanded where prose could only ask. It felt good. In the
> wanderings of the Hebrews after the exodus from Egypt, it was the
> sacred shrine that was carried before the multitude and followed by
> the people, but it was the poetry of Moses that determined when they
> would start and when stop, where they would go and where stay.

> https://www.julianjaynes.org/resources/books/ooc/en/of-poetry-and-music/

Quite an interesting read, Mack... you are a great new addition to our group...!

[Michael Pendragon]

Rather, the gods were to be followed unquestioningly. The Greek gods were often at odds with one another (which necessitates that one, or both, had to be incorrect), nor were they always followed unquestioningly -- hence the eternal punishments doled out to the souls of disobedient mortals.

> There was a divine order of life,
> ritualized and untouched by major disasters. As Jaynes puts it: "But
> the second millennium B.C. was not to last that way. Wars,
> catastrophes, national migrations became its central themes. Chaos
> darkened the holy brightnesses of the unconscious world. Hierarchies
> crumpled. And between the act and its divine source came the shadow,
> the pause that profaned, the dreadful loosening that made the gods
> unhappy, recriminatory, jealous. Until, finally, the screening off of
> their tyranny was effected by the invention on the basis of language
> of an analog space with an analog ‘I’. The careful elaborate
> structures of the bicameral mind had been shaken into consciousness."

The development of meta-consciousness (the awareness of selfhood) is a major theme in many religions from the ancient Greek myths, to the Torah ("The Old Testament"), to Hinduism, to Blake's Prophecies, to Ayn Rand's atheism (as expressed in her novella, "Anthem"). The question of when it began -- or even if there was ever a time when it did not exist -- remains an unknown factor subject to intellectual guessing games. My own belief is that it has always existed -- that single-celled microorganisms possess an awareness of "selfhood." My personal theory as to the prevalence of the theme in various religions is that the awakening of self-awareness is something that everyone experiences -- one two levels -- during the course of their lives. The first level occurs at birth. Prior to our birth, we existed in vitro (within our mother's womb); wherein our experiences were inseparable from her own. In the womb, we were constantly nourished -- we had no wants or cares -- or awareness of a world around us (as we grew, the walls of the womb were only centimeters away). The act of being born is a traumatic experience in which we are suddenly expelled from our paradisiacal existence into the cold, harsh reality of individual existence (a "Fall" from Paradise/separation from an all-nurturing, all-loving god). The second level is the process of integrating the various components of the psyche into a collective unity (what Jung called "Individuation"), which Blake details in his Major Prophecies as "Albion" (the Individuated Self) escapes the dominance of Reason to achieve his ideal, unified state (the progression of Atman into Brahman the Hindu equivalent).

However, I must make it entirely clear, that while Jaynes and I share many similar beliefs, I cannot over stress the fact that the human brain was never bicameral. I have chosen to call this a "fact" because there is no valid reason for supposing that it ever existed in such a form. The fetal brain does not develop as two separate parts that do not communicate with one another until a late stage in the pregnancy, but form as a single entity that later separates into three main, but always interconnected, parts. Nor, as previous noted, does the numinous experience of creative thought in any way denote a vestige from an ancient bicameral state -- but rather demonstrates one of the ways in which the unconscious and subconscious minds communicate with ego-consciousness.

> >> Vestiges of the bicameral mind in action have existed throughout the
> >> ages. I am thinking particulary of William Blake's poetry.
> >
> >William Blake considered himself a "prophet," and, as such, would correspond to Jaynes' concept of the numinous nature of creative (or schizotypal) thought. This, however, does not imply either that Blake's mind was bicameral or that bicameral minds had ever existed. Jaynes' theory for numinous thought is far from the only explanation. C.G. Jung's theory of the Collective Unconscious is well worth looking into for a more probable explanation of Blake. According to Jung, the Collective Unconscious is a collection of *living* archetypes that is shared by all of humankind. These archetypes *create* the basic myths that have formed the spiritual/religious philosophies of people from various cultures and times. The correspondences between Blake's "Greater Prophecies" and Jungian concepts of the sub-conscious and unconscious psyches are astounding ("Urizen," a.k.a., "Your Reason" representing ego consciousness -- the predominance of which constitutes our present "fallen" state).
> I wonder how Jung would respond to bicameralism. There is a kind of
> relationship: His ideas of "archetypes" - the persona, the shadow,
> the anima or animus and the self. These are a result of collective,
> shared ancestral memories that may persist in art, literature and
> religion but aren't obvious to the eye.

I suspect that Jung would have responded similarly to my own response -- as I am a dyed-in-the-wool Jungian -- whose personal theories, and understanding of the human experience, have been strongly influenced by Jungian teachings for the past forty years.

You are, however, mistaken about the Jungian archetypes. They are not the result of shared ancestral memories, but *living* myth-making entities in the Collective Unconscious which is common to all humankind (the Collective Unconscious may be envisioned as a data-base that all human beings have access to). They are, quite literally, analogous to gods -- existing in another (unconscious) dimension that we can only glimpse "through a glass darkly."

> >> Understanding Jaynes is an intellectual endeavor, and naysayers tend
> >> to ridicule it.
> >
> >Jaynes' theory ultimately fails because, like various forms of religion, it is built upon a false premise: that the left and right hemispheres of the human brain were totally disconnected from one another (although it self-contradictingly maintains that the right hemisphere was able to directly communicate with the left). If Jayne is subject to ridicule, this basic misconception is why.
> But you cannot say that with any certainty. If you believe in
> evolution, then you should believe in the evolution of the mind,
> unless you think that Adam and Eve suddenly appeared in Eden with
> fully-functioning modern minds.

I very much believe in evolution -- and in the evolution of the human mind. However, there is no reason to believe (or even to suspect) that the right and left hemispheres of a single organ were ever entirely separate from one another. The fetal brain does not develop this way, and since embryonic development in many ways reflects our evolution (the brief appearance of gill-like apparatuses being but one example). It is also biologically unsound to imagine a single organ developing into two wholly separated and non-communicating components. Jaynes' bicameral brain strikes me as being similar to the "Flying Spaghetti Monster": one cannot disprove its existence, but it can never be anything more than an unnecessary hypothesis.

As per Adam and Eve, I don't believe that they or the Garden ever existed (nor do I believe in the existence of the God who supposedly put them there and, in due course, kicked them out). Adam and Eve are a parable for the birth experience/development of self-awareness (the newborn realizes it is separate from its mother when it is forced to breath for itself -- Adam and Eve realize their separation from nature (and God) when they disobey His command (think for themselves); the eat of the Tree of Knowledge (self-awareness) and become ashamed of their nakedness (individuality) as a result. Biologically, man evolved over the course of billions of years from a single-celled organism to his present state. And while his brain progressively increased in size and mental ability, there has never been any biological, anthropological or genetic evidence to suggest that it was ever bicameral.

> >> Posting an idea or theory is merely posting an idea
> >> or theory for comment, but you are free to ignore it.
> >
> >Posting an idea or theory for comment is fine -- provided that you provide your own thoughts regarding it (as you've done here). Simply posting a topic for others to discuss is an imposition on the other members. We are not databases programmed to discuss arcane topics at will. Discussions of this nature require both research and thought. If we are going to invest our time and effort in expressing our thoughts on a given subject, we expect some interaction in return. This is why we attempt to enforce the aforementioned rule that links/excerpts must be accompanied by original commentary.
> I have noticed that there is some flaming going on among some of the
> members of the group. In that respect, the group is not special. BTW,
> do you have an FAQ?

This group primarily consists of flaming, I'm afraid. It's a classic example of one bad apple spoiling the batch.

Those of us who would like to see AAPC become a poetry discussion group welcome the opportunity your post has afforded us. Thank you.

Our group had an FAQ many years ago, but those who'd created it have long since gone. The current members have attempted to create a current set which I put together and posted:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/RbvzM9vnJf8/m/KT0lBFcZEgAJ?hl=en

They are not, however, written in stone, and are subject to grow and change in accordance with the wishes of the majority of active members at any given time.

I like to think that there are three basic rules for our group: 1) post an original poem, 2) discuss someone else's original poem, 3) post and discuss a famous poem or poetry-related article.

> >Regarding the bicameral mind and poetry:
> >
> >Jaynes holds that poets once "were hearing poetry (of a sort) composed and spoken within their own minds. Jaynes is grievously mistaken on this point. Some poets, myself included, hear this poetry today. I refer to us as "Muse Poets," because our poetry arises from the depths of our sub-conscious minds exactly as if it were being dictated by a god or, in my experience, goddess. This however, by no means signifies that I have a bicameral mind (nor even vestiges of one). It mean that I am able to tap into my sub-conscious mind, and to communicate with it more directly than the average individual. And while I may very well be prejudiced on the subject, I feel that poetry derived from such sub-conscious revelations is far richer in symbolic material, and consequently mulit-layered interpretation, than that derived solely from the ego-consciousness as a form of intellectual exercise. IOW: A true poet doesn't say "I think I'll try to write a Décima poem today; he says "Sing,
> >Heav'nly Muse!"
> Their personal gods were speaking to them. It doesn't get any more
> complicated than that. Where do ideas come from? Where does music
> come from? Where does poetry come from? The answer is, "We don't
> know." We may have ideas, but they are just theories, too. How do
> we know that the sub-conscious doesn't contains the gods of the
> bicameral mind?

I agree with you right up to the last two words: "bicameral mind."

Our personal gods still speak to us. Our gods, our ideas, our music, our poetry all come from the gods within our mind. But these gods are located in the Collective Unconscious -- not in the supposed vestiges of a bicameral mind that never existed.

BTW: Many modern physicists and philosophers have proposed that there is a "universal mind" or "universal database" that is similar to Jung's Collective Unconscious; whereas a bicameral (or split brain) has only been known to exist as the result of a surgical procedure (corpus callosotomy) or, more rarely, due to a the results of a stroke that severs the corpus callosum connective tissue (nerves) that connect the two spheres.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 20:27:15 +0000, tzod...@gmail.com (General-Zod)
wrote:

>Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
>>
>> Bicameral mentality is a hypothesis in psychology and neuroscience
>> which argues that the human mind once operated in a state in which
>> cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which

>> appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys?a

>> .. . . swallows a draught of water from a mysterious spring and ?
>> though ignorant generally of writing and of meters ? delivers his

>> response in set verses.
>
>> Poetry then was divine knowledge. And after the breakdown of the
>> bicameral mind, poetry was the sound and tenor of authorization.
>> Poetry commanded where prose could only ask. It felt good. In the
>> wanderings of the Hebrews after the exodus from Egypt, it was the
>> sacred shrine that was carried before the multitude and followed by
>> the people, but it was the poetry of Moses that determined when they
>> would start and when stop, where they would go and where stay.
>
>> https://www.julianjaynes.org/resources/books/ooc/en/of-poetry-and-music/
>
>
>Quite an interesting read, Mack... you are a great new addition to our group...!

Thanks for the warm fuzzy! I pray that I can live up to your
expectations.

There are lots of books and articles about Jaynes' theory; I find it
fascinating. As I said, if you believe in evolution, then you should
believe in the evolution of the mind. For instance, how and what did
Australopithicus think? Homo habilis and so-forth.....?

[Victor H.]

I'm a big fan of William Blake....

[Mack A. Damia]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 20:51:58 +0000, vhug...@gmail.com (Victor H.)
wrote:

>Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 11:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Spam-I-Am
>> <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 1:28:12 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 09:02:58 -0700 (PDT), Spam-I-Am
>>>> <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 11:34:41 AM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>>>> >> Bicameral mentality is a hypothesis in psychology and neuroscience
>>>> >> which argues that the human mind once operated in a state in which
>>>> >> cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which

>>>> >> appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys?a

>>>> >> . . . swallows a draught of water from a mysterious spring and ?
>>>> >> though ignorant generally of writing and of meters ? delivers his

>>>> >> response in set verses.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Poetry then was divine knowledge. And after the breakdown of the
>>>> >> bicameral mind, poetry was the sound and tenor of authorization.
>>>> >> Poetry commanded where prose could only ask. It felt good. In the
>>>> >> wanderings of the Hebrews after the exodus from Egypt, it was the
>>>> >> sacred shrine that was carried before the multitude and followed by
>>>> >> the people, but it was the poetry of Moses that determined when they
>>>> >> would start and when stop, where they would go and where stay.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> https://www.julianjaynes.org/resources/books/ooc/en/of-poetry-and-music/
>>>> >

>>>> >So??
>>>> ?Sing to me of the man, Muse, the man of twists and turns, driven time

>>>> and again off course, once he had plundered the hallowed heights of

>>>> Troy.? (Homer)
>>>
>>>?Gosh, Shazam & Golly.? (Gomer)

>
>> Sorry to hear it.
>
>> "Every Night & every Morn
>> Some to Misery are Born
>> Every Morn and every Night
>> Some are Born to sweet delight
>> Some are Born to sweet delight
>> Some are Born to Endless Night"
>> - William Blake
>
>
>I'm a big fan of William Blake....

Yes, indeed.

[Michael Pendragon]

Really? Explain how "The Four Zoas" (an abandoned project) fits into the mythology of his Greater Prophetic works.

[Victor H.]

Mack A. Damia wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 12:15:29 -0700 (PDT), Michael Pendragon
> <michaelmalef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>We have a rule

Mack, there is no such rule.

I found it quite fascinating, and indeed a worthy addition to the poetry group, Mack...

[Spam-I-Am]

If you believe in evolution, then it is reasonable to believe that the
human brain evolved in concert with the rest of its physical form.
As the brain evolved, so did the mind and consciousness, and as
language evolved, so did the ability to describe human experience.

[Spam-I-Am]

This is Fun. “We are Jung.”
https://youtu.be/azvekNsOrEU

[Mack A. Damia]

Yes and no. Ther are many human beings living on the earth today who
do not possess fully-functioning minds. They could operate based on
the voices of their personal gods.

“The vestiges of the bicameral mind do not exist in any empty
psychological space.”
— Julian Jaynes

[Mack A. Damia]

>Yes and no. There are many human beings living on the earth today who

>do not possess fully-functioning minds. They could operate based on
>the voices of their personal gods.
>
>“The vestiges of the bicameral mind do not exist in any empty
>psychological space.”
> — Julian Jaynes

"Although humans evolved into a higher state of subjective
consciousness, vestiges of the bicameral mind still remain, most
obviously in voice-hearing. As much as 10% of the population hear
voices at some point in their lives, much higher than the clinical
incidence of schizophrenia (1%). For many people, voice-hearing is not
debilitating and can be positive and encouraging."

https://www.philosophyforlife.org/blog/voice-hearing-and-the-bicameral-mind

[Spam-I-Am]

In fact, there are absolutely no human beings living on earth
today who do possess a fully functioning mind. If you are human,
then you are fallible by definition. You have your ups and downs.
We do the best with what we have available at any given moment.

[Spam-I-Am]

Bilateral tinnitus is a fairly common diagnosis, but nobody else can hear what I hear.

[Michael Pendragon]

The above is further evidence of Jaynes' applying a very real and well known psychological phenomenon to an improbable and biologically unsupported "first cause."

Our sub-conscious mind constantly interacts with our ego-consciousness through feelings, dreams, premonitions, and, occasionally, voices. Jaynes has basically taken an accepted premise from psychology (the subconscious can interact with the conscious mind via numinous voices and thoughts), removed the subconscious from the equation, and substituted it with the concept of a split brain that has no genetic, biological, or historical validation.

As a professional researcher, you should try looking into the teachings of Sigmund Freud and C.G. Jung. They depict the ego-consciousness as the proverbial tip of the iceberg -- with the greater portion of our mind (and, therefore, of our "selves") being sub- and unconscious. The unconscious and the ego-consciousness cannot interact with one another. However, the sub-conscious can interact with each, and is therefore used to bring unconscious thoughts to conscious light. Subconscious thoughts are filtered by the preconscious (to keep the ego from being overwhelmed by subconscious data). When the filters are relaxed (via sleep, fatigue, fasting, narcotics, etc.) more subconscious data is able to pass through ("'If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite." -- William Blake).

When I relax my preconscious filters, I allow more subconscious thoughts (and voices) to pass through into my consciousness. My poetry is "dictated" to me by a numinous voice that I hear, not with my ears, but with my thoughts. This is not the result of vestiges from a supposed ancestral bicameral brain. It is my subconscious speaking to my ego-conscious -- which is precisely the function the subconscious mind evolved to perform.

Science can measure subconscious and unconscious activity in various areas of the brain. It cannot show any evidence of an ancestral bicameral brain. Psychology is a fascinating science and Jungian psychology particularly so. The same things that appeal to you in Jaynes' theory are there -- but presented with a far more feasible, scientific basis.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 18:04:04 -0700 (PDT), Michael Pendragon

I stand by what I wrote, and there is no use in going around in
circles about it. I, too, studied Jung for years. I was enrolled in
a university graduate counseling-psycholgy program for a few years
back in the 1980s.

By the way, I am an INTJ. You?

I don't see any point in going around in circles about Jaynes. It is
somewhat like Richard Dawkins said:

“It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of
consummate genius, nothing in between …”

— Richard Dawkins, Ph.D., evolutionary biologist, Oxford
University, in The God Delusion

(He had his criticisms about the theory, too)

Anyway, Jaynes' theory is nothing short of brilliant.

[Michael Pendragon]

Just curious... If you're familiar with the role of the subconscious, why would you look for a "bicameral" brain to perform the same functions?

Is there some element in Jaynes' theory that negates the Freudo-Jungian construct of the ego-subconscious-unconscious structure of the psyche?

> By the way, I am an INTJ. You?

INTP-A

Personal prejudices aside, how so?

Thus far, it seems like he has simply substituted the "bicameral mind" for the subconscious -- much the same way that Bobby Henderson substituted the Flying Spaghetti Monster for God.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 09:02:53 -0700 (PDT), Michael Pendragon

We are referring to mankind 3,000 years ago. Evolution can occur over
a relatively short period of time.

>
>Is there some element in Jaynes' theory that negates the Freudo-Jungian construct of the ego-subconscious-unconscious structure of the psyche?

Not going there. No reason to compare it to other theories. It
stands alone.

I am not the sharpest tool in the shed and don't pretend to be. I
read the reviews of others. I know his theory is controversial, but
it also gets well-deserved praise from respectable sources.

Have you read the book?

https://www.julianjaynes.org/about/about-jaynes-theory/praise-for-julian-jaynes-theory/

[Spam-I-Am]

Don’t sell yourself short. You’re plenty pretentious.
Jayne’s theory stands in contrast to other theories,
but not independent of them. Comparison is easy.

[Michael Pendragon]

Of course it can... the question is one of "Did it?"

The only "evidence" Jaynes has provided (at least in the passages that you've quoted) to back up his bicameral mind theory is that 3,000-year old texts like "The Iliad" and the "Torah" have humans speaking to/hearing voices from gods.

And, yes, a split brain would account for such experiences.

But so would any of the following: the normal interaction between the ego and subconscious, the literary conventions of the time, religious experiences/revelations, hallucinations, the writer's attempt to relate his story to his religion/philosophy, etc.

> >Is there some element in Jaynes' theory that negates the Freudo-Jungian construct of the ego-subconscious-unconscious structure of the psyche?
> Not going there. No reason to compare it to other theories. It
> stands alone.

It is a bit cheesy.

But I wasn't asking you for a comparison. I am asking if Jaynes ruled out the possibility of the conscious-subconscious interaction as the cause of these prophetic experiences, and if he, what were his reasons.

Getting good reviews doesn't make a theory brilliant. From what you've posted thus far, I find interesting but fatally flawed as it has been built upon a faulty premise. If your only reason for calling it "brilliant" is that Mr. So-and-So said so in an article, my reliance on your opinion must necessarily fall down several notches. You have said that you're a researcher by profession, and that you cannot take the opinion of one man as gospel -- yet you are asking me to believe Jaynes' theory is brilliant on the grounds that it received good reviews.

> Have you read the book?

No. As previously admitted, I'd never heard of it before (and with good reason, IMHO).

> https://www.julianjaynes.org/about/about-jaynes-theory/praise-for-julian-jaynes-theory/

And the good reviews are on Jaynes Society's own website!

No offense but, ROTFLMAO over that one.

Here is a better review quote for you:

A more common response is the one given by neurophilosopher Patricia S. Churchland, an emerita professor at the University of California, San Diego. “It is fanciful,” she says of Jaynes’ book. “I don’t think that it added anything of substance to our understanding of the nature of consciousness and how consciousness emerges from brain activity.”
https://nautil.us/consciousness-began-when-the-gods-stopped-speaking-235445/

That's exactly what I said after having read only the excerpts you'd posted in this thread.

[Mack A. Damia]

What is the point of comparing them?

Novel ideas are likely to be suffocated under the mass of entrenched
attitudes.

"Prestentious"? Do you know the definition? Here it is:

"attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent,
culture, etc., than is actually possessed."

That is very close to an insult, and I will be out of here like a
streak of lightning if it continues. I don't need bullshit.

What is the point of comparing apples and oranges? They stand by
themselves, and it doesn't answer any deep mystery.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 11:20:18 -0700 (PDT), Michael Pendragon

Why not? But if you go to the Society, you will find reams of
conversations and criticisms - and you will find them in other places
if you search for them.

>No offense but, ROTFLMAO over that one.
>
>Here is a better review quote for you:
>
>A more common response is the one given by neurophilosopher Patricia S. Churchland, an emerita professor at the University of California, San Diego. “It is fanciful,” she says of Jaynes’ book. “I don’t think that it added anything of substance to our understanding of the nature of consciousness and how consciousness emerges from brain activity.”
>https://nautil.us/consciousness-began-when-the-gods-stopped-speaking-235445/
>
>That's exactly what I said after having read only the excerpts you'd posted in this thread.

Too much academic rivalry in academia, friend. Following in the
footsteps of S. J. Gould.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 10:45:39 -0700 (PDT), Spam-I-Am

Do I sound too educated? I don't talk down to people unless they give
me cause. Tit-for-tat.

I have a doctorate and am published. Here is one. Other publications
require payment for a membership, etc, but I haven't had a top-notch
career. I am a disabled Vietnam veteran. My life was impacted by war.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED348262

[Spam-I-Am]

The point of comparison is to discern differences.
The point of discussion is our mutual edification.
We’re just a bunch of know-nothing poets here. If
we have entrenched attitudes, it’s about our poetry.

I certainly didn’t intend insult, and I’m sorry that you
took my comment in that regard, but to say that one
“doesn’t pretend to be the sharpest tool in the shed”
simultaneously establishes what one does pretend.

[Spam-I-Am]

Don’t be ridiculous. There’s no such thing as “too educated”.

[Michael Pendragon]

Corey has come close to insulting everyone here at one time or another. Welcome to the club.

Comparing theories is the basic of the scientific method. If two similar theories conflict over a given point (whether a bicameral brain ever existed), one of these theories must be incorrect.

By comparing the two, we can determine which theory is the most likely of the two to be correct.

Since Jaynes has seen fit to rule out the subconscious as the cause of these voices, he must have had a reason for doing so. Not having read Jaynes, I've asked you what his reason for doing this was. If his reason appears valid, his theory will gain in validity as a result. If it turns out to be an unnecessary hypothesis grafted onto the existing theories of the psyche/self-awareness, it is a "spaghetti monster" (a chimerical God-like construct that one can only take on faith), and should be dismissed as such.

Your unwillingness to subject the theory to comparison (which, again, was not what I'd for) casts a great deal of doubt on its credibility.

[Spam-I-Am]

I only come close to insulting everyone because I’m an ISFJ-A.
Otherwise I’d never come close to insulting anyone at all, ever.

[Will Dockery]

Right.

Tell Mack your egotistical delusion of being a better poet than T.S Eliot, Pendragon.

[Michael Pendragon]

Troll post reported.

[Will Dockery]

Pendragon's deflection from the truth, noted.

And so it goes.

[Zod]

Very cool, Mack... I read with interest.

[Michael Pendragon]

There is no longer any point in refuting your lies, Donkey. As someone once noted: If you're typing, you must be lying.


Michael Pendragon
"I'll ask you again to to put your claims in my mouth."
-- George “Fillerup” Dance

[Will Dockery]

Which is actually the real lie, you shit slinging little monkey.

HTH and HAND.

Donkey. As someone once noted: If you're typing, you must be lying.

A statement that was actually second handed from me.

And so it goes.

[Michael Pendragon]

Go away, Donkey.

The adults are having a discussion.

[ME]

On Wednesday, 5 October 2022 at 11:34:41 UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> Bicameral mentality is a hypothesis in psychology and neuroscience
> which argues that the human mind once operated in a state in which
> cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which

> appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys—a

> bicameral mind, and that the evolutionary breakdown of this division
> gave rise to consciousness in humans. The term was coined by Julian
> Jaynes, who presented the idea in his 1976 book "The Origin of
> Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", wherein he
> made the case that a bicameral mentality was the normal and ubiquitous
> state of the human mind as recently as 3,000 years ago, near the end
> of the Mediterranean bronze age. (Wiki)
>
> The human mind operated in a kind of schizophrenic mode. Prehistoric
> humans had individual gods who spoke to them and who guided their
> actions.
>
> https://www.samwoolfe.com/2013/08/julian-jaynes-theory-of-bicameral-mind.html
>
> "Of Poetry and Music"
>
> The first poets were gods. Poetry began with the bicameral mind. The
> god-side of our ancient mentality, at least in a certain period of
> history, usually or perhaps always spoke in verse. This means that

> most men at one time, throughout the day, were hearing poetry (of a

> sort) composed and spoken within their own minds.
>

> . . . swallows a draught of water from a mysterious spring and —
> though ignorant generally of writing and of meters — delivers his

> response in set verses.
>
> Poetry then was divine knowledge. And after the breakdown of the
> bicameral mind, poetry was the sound and tenor of authorization.
> Poetry commanded where prose could only ask. It felt good. In the
> wanderings of the Hebrews after the exodus from Egypt, it was the
> sacred shrine that was carried before the multitude and followed by
> the people, but it was the poetry of Moses that determined when they
> would start and when stop, where they would go and where stay.
>
> https://www.julianjaynes.org/resources/books/ooc/en/of-poetry-and-music/

Hi Mack, welcome to the group!

[Will Dockery]

Not likely, little monkey.

> The adults are having a discussion.

That's hilarious, coming from a childish name calling little monkey like you, Pendragon.

HTH and HAND.

[Spam-I-Am]

If you have something to add to the bicameral
mind and poetry discussion, please do so.

[Michael Pendragon]

I have a great respect for war veterans, and do not intend the following question as insulting or demeaning in any way. Did you, by any chance, suffer a traumatic brain injury that severed the left and right hemispheres of your brain?

> https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED348262

[Will Dockery]

Spam-I-Am wrote:
>
> If you have something to add to the bicameral
> mind and poetry discussion, please do so.

Yes, see below.

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 8:03:53 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> Mack A. Damia wrote:
>

> > The gods were always correct. There was a divine order of life,

> > ritualized and untouched by major disasters. As Jaynes puts it: "But
> > the second millennium B.C. was not to last that way. Wars,
> > catastrophes, national migrations became its central themes. Chaos
> > darkened the holy brightnesses of the unconscious world. Hierarchies
> > crumpled. And between the act and its divine source came the shadow,
> > the pause that profaned, the dreadful loosening that made the gods
> > unhappy, recriminatory, jealous. Until, finally, the screening off of
> > their tyranny was effected by the invention on the basis of language
> > of an analog space with an analog ‘I’. The careful elaborate
> > structures of the bicameral mind had been shaken into consciousness."
>

> >>> Vestiges of the bicameral mind in action have existed throughout the
> >>> ages. I am thinking particulary of William Blake's poetry.
> >>
> >>William Blake considered himself a "prophet," and, as such, would correspond to Jaynes' concept of the numinous nature of creative (or schizotypal) thought. This, however, does not imply either that Blake's mind was bicameral or that bicameral minds had ever existed. Jaynes' theory for numinous thought is far from the only explanation. C.G. Jung's theory of the Collective Unconscious is well worth looking into for a more probable explanation of Blake. According to Jung, the Collective Unconscious is a collection of *living* archetypes that is shared by all of humankind. These archetypes *create* the basic myths that have formed the spiritual/religious philosophies of people from various cultures and times. The correspondences between Blake's "Greater Prophecies" and Jungian concepts of the sub-conscious and unconscious psyches are astounding ("Urizen," a.k.a., "Your Reason" representing ego consciousness -- the predominance of which constitutes our present "fallen" state).
>
> > I wonder how Jung would respond to bicameralism. There is a kind of
> > relationship: His ideas of "archetypes" - the persona, the shadow,
> > the anima or animus and the self. These are a result of collective,
> > shared ancestral memories that may persist in art, literature and
> > religion but aren't obvious to the eye.
>

> >>> Understanding Jaynes is an intellectual endeavor, and naysayers tend
> >>> to ridicule it.
> >>
> >>Jaynes' theory ultimately fails because, like various forms of religion, it is built upon a false premise: that the left and right hemispheres of the human brain were totally disconnected from one another (although it self-contradictingly maintains that the right hemisphere was able to directly communicate with the left). If Jayne is subject to ridicule, this basic misconception is why.
>
> > But you cannot say that with any certainty. If you believe in
> > evolution, then you should believe in the evolution of the mind,
> > unless you think that Adam and Eve suddenly appeared in Eden with
> > fully-functioning modern minds.
>

> >>> Posting an idea or theory is merely posting an idea
> >>> or theory for comment, but you are free to ignore it.
> >>
> >>Posting an idea or theory for comment is fine -- provided that you provide your own thoughts regarding it (as you've done here). Simply posting a topic for others to discuss is an imposition on the other members. We are not databases programmed to discuss arcane topics at will. Discussions of this nature require both research and thought. If we are going to invest our time and effort in expressing our thoughts on a given subject, we expect some interaction in return. This is why we attempt to enforce the aforementioned rule that links/excerpts must be accompanied by original commentary.
>
> > I have noticed that there is some flaming going on among some of the
> > members of the group. In that respect, the group is not special. BTW,
> > do you have an FAQ?
>

> >>Regarding the bicameral mind and poetry:
> >>
> >>Jaynes holds that poets once "were hearing poetry (of a sort) composed and spoken within their own minds. Jaynes is grievously mistaken on this point. Some poets, myself included, hear this poetry today. I refer to us as "Muse Poets," because our poetry arises from the depths of our sub-conscious minds exactly as if it were being dictated by a god or, in my experience, goddess. This however, by no means signifies that I have a bicameral mind (nor even vestiges of one). It mean that I am able to tap into my sub-conscious mind, and to communicate with it more directly than the average individual. And while I may very well be prejudiced on the subject, I feel that poetry derived from such sub-conscious revelations is far richer in symbolic material, and consequently mulit-layered interpretation, than that derived solely from the ego-consciousness as a form of intellectual exercise. IOW: A true poet doesn't say "I think I'll try to write a Décima poem today; he says "Sing,
> >>Heav'nly Muse!"
>
> > Their personal gods were speaking to them. It doesn't get any more
> > complicated than that. Where do ideas come from? Where does music
> > come from? Where does poetry come from? The answer is, "We don't
> > know." We may have ideas, but they are just theories, too. How do
> > we know that the sub-conscious doesn't contains the gods of the
> > bicameral mind?

> Also known as the Muses.

Here, Corey ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Michael Pendragon]

Repeating something I'd already said is not adding to the conversation, Donkey.

[Will Dockery]

I was responding to Mack, not you.

[Michael Pendragon]

"Here, Corey ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^" implies that you were responding to Corey.

You seem confused again, Donkey. You really ought to have that checked.

[Spam-I-Am]

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 9:21:02 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:

If the only thing he has to contribute to the thread
is a sentence fragment that affirms your previously
stated thesis, then you might consider thanking him
for the effort, because that is literally all he had to offer.

[Will Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 9:22:29 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 9:21:02 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 9:15:27 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > Spam-I-Am wrote:
>
>> > > > If you have something to add to the bicameral
>> > > > mind and poetry discussion, please do so.
>> > > Yes, see below.
>
>> > > On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 8:03:53 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > > Mack A. Damia wrote:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Here the thread shows I was responding to Mack ^^^^^^^^^^

>> > > > >>Jaynes holds that poets once "were hearing poetry (of a sort) composed and spoken within their own minds. Jaynes is grievously mistaken on this point. Some poets, myself included, hear this poetry today. I refer to us as "Muse Poets," because our poetry arises from the depths of our sub-conscious minds exactly as if it were being dictated by a god or, in my experience, goddess. This however, by no means signifies that I have a bicameral mind (nor even vestiges of one). It mean that I am able to tap into my sub-conscious mind, and to communicate with it more directly than the average individual. And while I may very well be prejudiced on the subject, I feel that poetry derived from such sub-conscious revelations is far richer in symbolic material, and consequently mulit-layered interpretation, than that derived solely from the ego-consciousness as a form of intellectual exercise.. IOW: A true poet doesn't say "I think I'll try to write a Décima poem today; he says "Sing,

>> > > > >>Heav'nly Muse!"
>> > > >
>> > > > > Their personal gods were speaking to them. It doesn't get any more
>> > > > > complicated than that. Where do ideas come from? Where does music
>> > > > > come from? Where does poetry come from? The answer is, "We don't
>> > > > > know." We may have ideas, but they are just theories, too. How do
>> > > > > we know that the sub-conscious doesn't contains the gods of the
>> > > > > bicameral mind?
>> > > > Also known as the Muses.
>> > >
>> > > Here, Corey ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > Repeating something I'd already said is not adding to the conversation, Donkey.

>> I was responding to Mack, not you.

> "Here, Corey ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^" implies that you were responding to Corey.

Read it again, I made the comment about the Muses much earlier in the thread.

See above ^^^^^^^

> You seem confused

Actually, you seem to be the confused one, you delusional shit slinging little monkey.

HTH and HAND.

[Spam-I-Am]

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 9:15:27 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:

Please explain what you mean by that,
using full and complete sentences, so
that others might better understand you.

[Will Dockery]

You asked, so there it is, Corey.

[Spam-I-Am]

Thanks, I’m sure you did the best you could.

[Michael Pendragon]

"Here, Corey ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^" still implies that you were responding to Corey.

Learn how to express yourself clearly.

And whether you were responding to Mack or to me makes no difference. You were still repeating my comment about Muses -- and repeating someone else's comment is not adding to the discussion.

[Will Dockery]

Corey asked what I thought of Mack's post and so I showed him my comment, which he seems to have missed.

HTH and HAND.

[Will Dockery]

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 11:34:41 AM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
> Bicameral mentality is a hypothesis in psychology and neuroscience
> which argues that the human mind once operated in a state in which
> cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which
> appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys—a
> bicameral mind, and that the evolutionary breakdown of this division
> gave rise to consciousness in humans. The term was coined by Julian
> Jaynes, who presented the idea in his 1976 book "The Origin of
> Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", wherein he
> made the case that a bicameral mentality was the normal and ubiquitous
> state of the human mind as recently as 3,000 years ago, near the end
> of the Mediterranean bronze age. (Wiki)
>
> The human mind operated in a kind of schizophrenic mode. Prehistoric
> humans had individual gods who spoke to them and who guided their
> actions.
>
> https://www.samwoolfe.com/2013/08/julian-jaynes-theory-of-bicameral-mind.html
>
> "Of Poetry and Music"
>
> The first poets were gods. Poetry began with the bicameral mind. The
> god-side of our ancient mentality, at least in a certain period of
> history, usually or perhaps always spoke in verse. This means that

> most men at one time, throughout the day, were hearing poetry (of a

> sort) composed and spoken within their own minds.
>

My thought when reading this was, yes the Muses.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

But since I had already expressed the same sentiment (albeit more eloquently), your repeating it *added* nothing to the conversation.

[Will Dockery]

Since I skip and ignore most of your posts, I didn't see what you've written, Pendragon.

So we apparently agree, Pendragon.

Get over it.

[Michael Pendragon]

1) You quoted part of it in the headers.
2) Regardless of whether you read the discussions you're "participating" in, you managed to *add* nothing to the conversation.

[Spam-I-Am]

My bad, I suppose I missed your post because I don’t read most of your posts, because
you never have much to say, and this sentence fragment about “Muses” was no exception.

[Will Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 10:36:50 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 10:10:17 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 10:02:55 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 11:34:41 AM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Bicameral mentality is a hypothesis in psychology and neuroscience
>> > > > which argues that the human mind once operated in a state in which
>> > > > cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which
>> > > > appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys—a
>> > > > bicameral mind, and that the evolutionary breakdown of this division
>> > > > gave rise to consciousness in humans. The term was coined by Julian
>> > > > Jaynes, who presented the idea in his 1976 book "The Origin of
>> > > > Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", wherein he
>> > > > made the case that a bicameral mentality was the normal and ubiquitous
>> > > > state of the human mind as recently as 3,000 years ago, near the end
>> > > > of the Mediterranean bronze age. (Wiki)
>> > > >
>> > > > The human mind operated in a kind of schizophrenic mode. Prehistoric
>> > > > humans had individual gods who spoke to them and who guided their
>> > > > actions.
>> > > >
>> > > > https://www.samwoolfe.com/2013/08/julian-jaynes-theory-of-bicameral-mind.html
>> > > >
>> > > > "Of Poetry and Music"
>> > > >
>> > > > The first poets were gods. Poetry began with the bicameral mind. The
>> > > > god-side of our ancient mentality, at least in a certain period of
>> > > > history, usually or perhaps always spoke in verse. This means that

>> > > > most men at one time, throughout the day, were hearing poetry (of a

>> > > > sort) composed and spoken within their own minds.
>> > > >

>> > > > The evidence is, of course, only inferential. It is that all of those
>> > > > individuals who remained bicameral into the conscious age, when

>> > > > speaking of or from the divine side of their minds, spoke in poetry..

I added my comment, my observation.

Take it or leave it.

HTH and HAND.

[Will Dockery]

As you know, I feel similarly about your posts and poetry, Corey.

HTH and HAND.

[Spam-I-Am]

That’s fine. I was simply explaining why I missed your fragmented comment.

[Will Dockery]

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 11:34:41 AM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
> Bicameral mentality is a hypothesis in psychology and neuroscience
> which argues that the human mind once operated in a state in which
> cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which
> appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys—a
> bicameral mind, and that the evolutionary breakdown of this division
> gave rise to consciousness in humans. The term was coined by Julian
> Jaynes, who presented the idea in his 1976 book "The Origin of
> Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", wherein he
> made the case that a bicameral mentality was the normal and ubiquitous
> state of the human mind as recently as 3,000 years ago, near the end
> of the Mediterranean bronze age. (Wiki)
>
> The human mind operated in a kind of schizophrenic mode. Prehistoric
> humans had individual gods who spoke to them and who guided their
> actions.
>
> https://www.samwoolfe.com/2013/08/julian-jaynes-theory-of-bicameral-mind.html
>
> "Of Poetry and Music"
>
> The first poets were gods. Poetry began with the bicameral mind. The
> god-side of our ancient mentality, at least in a certain period of
> history, usually or perhaps always spoke in verse. This means that

> most men at one time, throughout the day, were hearing poetry (of a

> sort) composed and spoken within their own minds.
>

> The evidence is, of course, only inferential. It is that all of those
> individuals who remained bicameral into the conscious age, when
> speaking of or from the divine side of their minds, spoke in poetry.

Mack, as I mentioned earlier, the inner voice phenomenon reminded me of the Muses.

I didn't mention it first, of course, but I don't think this is a contest to see who posts the fastest.

HTH and HAND.

[Michael Pendragon]

Spam-I-Am addressed you as follows:

"If you have something to add to the bicameral
mind and poetry discussion, please do so."

Mentioning a concept that had already been discussed added *nothing* to the discussion.

As Spam-I-Am later explained to me:

"If the only thing [Will] has to contribute to the thread

is a sentence fragment that affirms your previously
stated thesis, then you might consider thanking him
for the effort, because that is literally all he had to offer."

In light of which, I thank you for the effort.

[Victor Hugo Fan]

Pretty obvious, Pen was far from unique in this area....

[Michael Pendragon]

That's not the point, Stink.

One either adds to a discussion or not.

Neither you nor your Donkey has added anything new to the discussion.

HtH & HAND

[Victor Hugo Fan]

On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 6:58:56 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:

> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 12:02:54 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 11:43:00 AM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> > > On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 18:04:04 -0700 (PDT), Michael Pendragon
> > > <michaelmalef...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >
> > > >On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 7:26:23 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> > > >> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 15:14:06 -0700 (PDT), Michael Pendragon
> > > >> <michaelmalef...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 4:44:38 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> > > >> >> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 12:15:29 -0700 (PDT), Michael Pendragon
> > > >> >> <michaelmalef...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >We have a rule regarding the posting of links and/or extracts from other sources here, Mack. And that rule is that when we post someone else's essay, poem, article, etc., we must also post an *original* comment or question regarding it.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >I would be happy to discuss the relation between the hypothetical "bicameral mind" and poetry with you, but I cannot do so unless you first offer your own theories and opinions on the subject.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >One of our "members" (Isaac Chase, who posts under the name of his nephew, "Jordy") has gotten himself almost unilaterally blocked for repeatedly posting links without the requisite original commentary accompanying them. Don't be a "Jordy."
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >So please tell us *your* thoughts on the topic at hand, and we'll see if any interesting discussions develop from there.
> > > >> >> It is a theory and very popular among some; there is even a Julian
> > > >> >> Jaynes Society.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> https://www.julianjaynes.org/

<<<snipped for brevity>>>

> > > >> I wonder how Jung would respond to bicameralism. There is a kind of
> > > >> relationship: His ideas of "archetypes" - the persona, the shadow,
> > > >> the anima or animus and the self. These are a result of collective,
> > > >> shared ancestral memories that may persist in art, literature and
> > > >> religion but aren't obvious to the eye.
> > > >

> > > >I suspect that Jung would have responded similarly to my own response -- as I am a dyed-in-the-wool Jungian -- whose personal theories, and understanding of the human experience, have been strongly influenced by Jungian teachings for the past forty years.
> > > >
> > > >You are, however, mistaken about the Jungian archetypes. They are not the result of shared ancestral memories, but *living* myth-making entities in the Collective Unconscious which is common to all humankind (the Collective Unconscious may be envisioned as a data-base that all human beings have access to). They are, quite literally, analogous to gods -- existing in another (unconscious) dimension that we can only glimpse "through a glass darkly."
> > > I stand by what I wrote, and there is no use in going around in
> > > circles about it. I, too, studied Jung for years. I was enrolled in
> > > a university graduate counseling-psycholgy program for a few years
> > > back in the 1980s.
> > Just curious... If you're familiar with the role of the subconscious, why would you look for a "bicameral" brain to perform the same functions?
> >
> > Is there some element in Jaynes' theory that negates the Freudo-Jungian construct of the ego-subconscious-unconscious structure of the psyche?
> > > By the way, I am an INTJ. You?
> > INTP-A

You really are delusionl, arent't ya, Pen.....?

Ha ha...

> Right.
>
> Tell Mack your egotistical delusion of being a better poet than T.S Eliot, Pendragon.

Ha ha ha ha.....!

[Michael Pendragon]

Do you even know what INTP-A means, Stink?

> > Right.
> >
> > Tell Mack your egotistical delusion of being a better poet than T.S Eliot, Pendragon.
> Ha ha ha ha.....!

I'm a better poet than G.J. Sulzbach.

[Victor Hugo Fan]

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 3:41:56 PM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 3:33:39 PM UTC-4, vhug...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 6:58:56 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > >On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 7:26:23 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:

But you are so delusional of a fool to imagine yourself better than T.S Eliot, in other words you're an ignorant ass hole...!

[Victor Hugo Fan]

On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 10:45:39 -0700 (PDT), Spam-I-Am
> <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 12:52:27 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
> >
> >Don’t sell yourself short. You’re plenty pretentious.
> >Jayne’s theory stands in contrast to other theories,
> >but not independent of them. Comparison is easy.
> Do I sound too educated? I don't talk down to people unless they give
> me cause. Tit-for-tat.
>
> I have a doctorate and am published. Here is one. Other publications
> require payment for a membership, etc, but I haven't had a top-notch
> career. I am a disabled Vietnam veteran. My life was impacted by war.
>
> https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED348262

Well put... I am a Navy vet, myself...

[Will Dockery]

To say the least.

🙂

[W.Dockery]

Spam-I-Am wrote:

> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 10:58:50 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 10:44:23 AM UTC-4, Spam-I-Am wrote:
>> > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 10:00:02 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:

>> > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 9:57:33 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
>> > > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 9:40:16 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>> > > > > Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> > > > > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 9:22:29 AM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:

>> > > > > >> > > > >>> or theory for comment, but you are free to ignore it..

Okay, no problem, have a nice day, Corey.

🙂

[W.Dockery]

Which I did, Pendragon.

You understand that the concept of the Muse isn't your original idea, right?

[General-Zod]

That is correct....!

[Michael Pendragon]

THREAD REPORTED AS SPAM AFTER HAVING BEEN APPROPRIATED BY THE DONKEY AND HIS STINK

NOTE TO MACK: If you wish to discuss this further, please do so in a new thread, as reporting it blocks me from viewing it.

[Rocky Stoneberg]

> .. . . swallows a draught of water from a mysterious spring and —

> though ignorant generally of writing and of meters — delivers his
> response in set verses.

> Poetry then was divine knowledge. And after the breakdown of the
> bicameral mind, poetry was the sound and tenor of authorization.
> Poetry commanded where prose could only ask. It felt good. In the
> wanderings of the Hebrews after the exodus from Egypt, it was the
> sacred shrine that was carried before the multitude and followed by
> the people, but it was the poetry of Moses that determined when they
> would start and when stop, where they would go and where stay.

> https://www.julianjaynes.org/resources/books/ooc/en/of-poetry-and-music/

Odin, in Norse myth, was another creator of poets, with drops from his mead bag...!

[W.Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 3:33:39 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 11:43:00 AM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
>> > > Is there some element in Jaynes' theory that negates the Freudo-Jungian construct of the ego-subconscious-unconscious structure of the psyche?
>
>> > > > By the way, I am an INTJ. You?
>
>> > > INTP-A
>

> Do you even know what INTP-A means

I do, and you're definitely not one, Pendragon.

"introverted and intuitive" you're definitely not, Pendragon, you shit slinging little monkey.

HTH and HAND.

[Will Dockery]

Sure, no worries.

[Victor H.]

>> > > > > > >> > > > >>Posting an idea or theory for comment is fine -- provided that you provide your own thoughts regarding it (as you've done here).. Simply posting a topic for others to discuss is an imposition on the other members. We are not databases programmed to discuss arcane topics at will.. Discussions of this nature require both research and thought. If we are going to invest our time and effort in expressing our thoughts on a given subject, we expect some interaction in return. This is why we attempt to enforce the aforementioned rule that links/excerpts must be accompanied by original commentary.

>> > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> > > > > I have noticed that there is some flaming going on among some of the
>> > > > > > >> > > > > members of the group. In that respect, the group is not special. BTW,
>> > > > > > >> > > > > do you have an FAQ?
>> > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> > > > >>Regarding the bicameral mind and poetry:
>> > > > > > >> > > > >>

>> > > > > > >> > > > >>Jaynes holds that poets once "were hearing poetry (of a sort) composed and spoken within their own minds. Jaynes is grievously mistaken on this point. Some poets, myself included, hear this poetry today.. I refer to us as "Muse Poets," because our poetry arises from the depths of our sub-conscious minds exactly as if it were being dictated by a god or, in my experience, goddess. This however, by no means signifies that I have a bicameral mind (nor even vestiges of one). It mean that I am able to tap into my sub-conscious mind, and to communicate with it more directly than the average individual. And while I may very well be prejudiced on the subject, I feel that poetry derived from such sub-conscious revelations is far richer in symbolic material, and consequently mulit-layered interpretation, than that derived solely from the ego-consciousness as a form of intellectual exercise.. IOW: A true poet doesn't say "I think I'll try to write a Décima poem today; he says "Sing,

>> > > > > > >> > > > >>Heav'nly Muse!"
>> > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> > > > > Their personal gods were speaking to them. It doesn't get any more
>> > > > > > >> > > > > complicated than that. Where do ideas come from? Where does music
>> > > > > > >> > > > > come from? Where does poetry come from? The answer is, "We don't
>> > > > > > >> > > > > know." We may have ideas, but they are just theories, too. How do
>> > > > > > >> > > > > we know that the sub-conscious doesn't contains the gods of the
>> > > > > > >> > > > > bicameral mind?
>> > > > > > >> > > > Also known as the Muses.
>> > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > >> > > Here, Corey ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > > > > > >> > Repeating something I'd already said is not adding to the conversation, Donkey.
>> > > > > > >> I was responding to Mack, not you.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > "Here, Corey ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^" implies that you were responding to Corey.
>> > > > > > Read it again, I made the comment about the Muses much earlier in the thread.
>> > > > > "Here, Corey ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^" still implies that you were responding to Corey.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Learn how to express yourself clearly.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > And whether you were responding to Mack or to me makes no difference. You were still repeating my comment about Muses -- and repeating someone else's comment is not adding to the discussion.
>> > > > Corey asked what I thought of Mack's post and so I showed him my comment, which he seems to have missed.
>> > > >
>> > > > HTH and HAND.
>> > > My bad, I suppose I missed your post because I don’t read most of your posts, because
>> > > you never have much to say, and this sentence fragment about “Muses” was no exception.
>> > As you know, I feel similarly about your posts and poetry, Corey.
>> >
>> > HTH and HAND.
>> That’s fine. I was simply explaining why I missed your fragmented comment.

> Sure, no worries.

Cool, groovy....!

[W-Dockery]

Spam-I-Am wrote:

> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 6:55:25 AM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2022 03:52:15 -0700, Mack A. Damia
>> <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 02:05:48 -0700 (PDT), Spam-I-Am
>> ><hierony...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 10:48:15 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 20:27:15 +0000, tzod...@gmail.com (General-Zod)

>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >Mack A. Damia wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >>

>> >>> >> Bicameral mentality is a hypothesis in psychology and neuroscience
>> >>> >> which argues that the human mind once operated in a state in which
>> >>> >> cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which

>> >>> >> appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys?a

>> >>> >> bicameral mind, and that the evolutionary breakdown of this division
>> >>> >> gave rise to consciousness in humans. The term was coined by Julian
>> >>> >> Jaynes, who presented the idea in his 1976 book "The Origin of
>> >>> >> Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", wherein he
>> >>> >> made the case that a bicameral mentality was the normal and ubiquitous
>> >>> >> state of the human mind as recently as 3,000 years ago, near the end
>> >>> >> of the Mediterranean bronze age. (Wiki)
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> The human mind operated in a kind of schizophrenic mode. Prehistoric
>> >>> >> humans had individual gods who spoke to them and who guided their
>> >>> >> actions.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> https://www.samwoolfe.com/2013/08/julian-jaynes-theory-of-bicameral-mind.html
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> "Of Poetry and Music"
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> The first poets were gods. Poetry began with the bicameral mind. The
>> >>> >> god-side of our ancient mentality, at least in a certain period of
>> >>> >> history, usually or perhaps always spoke in verse. This means that

>> >>> >> most men at one time, throughout the day, were hearing poetry (of a

>> >>> >> sort) composed and spoken within their own minds.
>> >>> >

>> >>> >> The evidence is, of course, only inferential. It is that all of those
>> >>> >> individuals who remained bicameral into the conscious age, when
>> >>> >> speaking of or from the divine side of their minds, spoke in poetry.
>> >>> >> The great epics of Greece were of course heard and spoken by the
>> >>> >> aoidoi as poetry. The ancient writings of Mesopotamia and Egypt are
>> >>> >> darkened with our ignorance of how such languages were pronounced; but
>> >>> >> with such assurances in transliteration as we can muster, such
>> >>> >> writings when spoken were also poetry. In India, the oldest literature
>> >>> >> is the Veda, which were dictated by gods to the rishi or prophets;
>> >>> >> these too were poetry. Oracles spoke poetry. From time to time, their
>> >>> >> utterances from Delphi and elsewhere were written down, and every one
>> >>> >> of them that survives as more than a simple phrase is in dactylic
>> >>> >> hexameter, just as were the epics. The Hebrew prophets also, when
>> >>> >> relaying the hallucinated utterance of Yahweh, were often poets,
>> >>> >> though their scribes did not in every case preserve such speech in
>> >>> >> verse.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> As the bicameral mind recedes further into history, and the oracles
>> >>> >> reach their fifth term, there are exceptions. Poetic utterance by the
>> >>> >> oracles breaks down here and there. The oracle at Delphi, for example,
>> >>> >> in the first century A.D. evidently spoke in both verse and prose, the

>> >>> >> latter to be put into verse by poets in the service of the temples..1

>> >>> >> But the very impulse to transpose oracular prose back into dactylic
>> >>> >> hexameters is, I suggest, a part of the nostalgia for the divine in
>> >>> >> this late period; it demonstrates again that metered verse had been
>> >>> >> the rule previously. Even later, some oracles still spoke exclusively
>> >>> >> in dactylic hexameters. Tacitus, for example, visited the oracle of
>> >>> >> Apollo at Claros about A.D. 100 and described how the entranced priest
>> >>> >> listened to his decision-seeking petitioners; he then.....
>> >>> >

>> >>> >> .. . . swallows a draught of water from a mysterious spring and ?
>> >>> >> though ignorant generally of writing and of meters ? delivers his

>> >>> >> response in set verses.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> Poetry then was divine knowledge. And after the breakdown of the
>> >>> >> bicameral mind, poetry was the sound and tenor of authorization.
>> >>> >> Poetry commanded where prose could only ask. It felt good. In the
>> >>> >> wanderings of the Hebrews after the exodus from Egypt, it was the
>> >>> >> sacred shrine that was carried before the multitude and followed by
>> >>> >> the people, but it was the poetry of Moses that determined when they
>> >>> >> would start and when stop, where they would go and where stay.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> https://www.julianjaynes.org/resources/books/ooc/en/of-poetry-and-music/
>> >>> >
>> >>> >

>> >>> >Quite an interesting read, Mack... you are a great new addition to our group...!
>> >>> Thanks for the warm fuzzy! I pray that I can live up to your
>> >>> expectations.
>> >>>
>> >>> There are lots of books and articles about Jaynes' theory; I find it
>> >>> fascinating. As I said, if you believe in evolution, then you should
>> >>> believe in the evolution of the mind. For instance, how and what did
>> >>> Australopithicus think? Homo habilis and so-forth.....?
>> >>
>> >>If you believe in evolution, then it is reasonable to believe that the
>> >>human brain evolved in concert with the rest of its physical form.
>> >>As the brain evolved, so did the mind and consciousness, and as
>> >>language evolved, so did the ability to describe human experience.
>> >
>> >Yes and no. There are many human beings living on the earth today who
>> >do not possess fully-functioning minds. They could operate based on
>> >the voices of their personal gods.
>> >
>> >“The vestiges of the bicameral mind do not exist in any empty
>> >psychological space.”
>> > — Julian Jaynes
>> "Although humans evolved into a higher state of subjective
>> consciousness, vestiges of the bicameral mind still remain, most
>> obviously in voice-hearing. As much as 10% of the population hear
>> voices at some point in their lives, much higher than the clinical
>> incidence of schizophrenia (1%). For many people, voice-hearing is not
>> debilitating and can be positive and encouraging."
>>
>> https://www.philosophyforlife.org/blog/voice-hearing-and-the-bicameral-mind

> Bilateral tinnitus is a fairly common diagnosis, but nobody else can hear what I hear.

Get well soon, Corey.

[Spam-I-Am]

You misunderstood my comment relative to Mack’s voice-hearing remark. My bad.

[Will Dockery]

Okay, I see what you mean now, Corey.

[Spam-I-Am]

Okay, so you say, but what is it that you think I mean?

[Spam-I-Am]

Any ideas?

[Will Dockery]

Yes, one or two.

[Victor Hugo Fan]

Rather than voices, you hear sounds...?

Such as what Lou Reed heard....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w02O-XdsXE

[Spam-I-Am]

Duh, sure you do.

[Rachel]

please explain how mikey is not intuitive

[Victor Hugo Fan]

Pen sure is not **introverted*** I will grant you that....!

[Will Dockery]

Absolutely.

🙂

[Spam-I-Am]

It doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks. The Briggs & Myers
personality test is a tool for self-diagnosis, and improvement.

[Victor Hugo Fan]

And thus the person giving himself the test could give false answers thus changing the outcome....

[Spam-I-Am]

Why would someone lie to themself about themself?

[Victor Hugo Fan]

On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-4, Spam-I-Am wrote:
>
> Why would someone lie to themself about themself?

Does Pendragon seem like an introvert to you...?