Archaeologica.org

Minimalist wrote:Just checking.

Yes, thank you, Min ... I'm not crazy and in any case, maybe we need to redefine what crazy is.

But everyone has that chocolate biscuit conversation/negotiation, even though it may be over something different. It's more about impulses than voices.

For example, you may be walking down the street and see this really hot babe and get all sorts of thoughts about what you'd like to do with her right there and then. So your impulses are telling you to do one thing, but another (more societally conditioned) voice will be saying "No, don't listen to him. Otherwise, you will upset that woman, your wife and not to mention all the passers by." So you restrain yourself ... you settle for a compromise of, say, perhaps being satisfied by day dreaming about what could have been.

It's the same thing as my chocolate biscuit conversation ... except that I usually give in to the chocolate biscuit because my action won't upset the rest of the society.

Well,...regarding this voice thing.

It has been my experience with the PSYLOCIBIN mushroom that if enough is ingested, and you don't waste too much time marveling at the visuals, the VOICE can be loud, clear, insightful and entertaining.... and definately NOT some aspect of my self, High or Low.

Over the years, have transcribed some of the dialogues and they have a very intelligent resonance when read later, that make astounding and helpfull sense even when shared without any reference to the source.

Its not something I do often, last was about 5 years ago. The experience is very intense and the antithesis of anything addictive, and is used in clinical environments for people struggling with addiction with success. Once you have had a good swim in the sea of equinimity that extra pint/hit just doesn't seem so important.

Getting back to the veracity of the Voice, about 8 years ago I recorded a session which included a discussion on origins of civilization. The fungus' Voice has a very dry, playfull and often dark sense of humour......

Mushroom: "We just didn't see the Dog thing coming."
Me: "What Dog thing?"
Mushroom: "Who knew they were going to herd?"
...there was much more.... equally loopy.

At the time it was such an outside the box insight, it made me question and rethink my trust and relationship with the Fungus in general.

(I thought the link would be easier to find), but in the US in the last month+- National Geographic had a special about the relationship between humans and dogs, speculating that it may have been the natural inclination of dogs to herd, that sparked civilization, more herding ....less chasing dinner through the woods, spare time to stay put and build stuff, etc. etc...

My faith in the quirky Mushroom is freshly renewed.

Enjoy your weekends, I'm out the door and unplugged for a few days.

Ishtar wrote:After reading the link provided by John to Julian Jaynes' website, I would like to discuss his theory about the bicameral mind.

I think there may be some value to this, because all three of us (John, woodrabbit and me) have experienced being in the shamanic state, and thus have a practical experience of what Jaynes (I'm assuming) only knew about in theory.

Anyway, just to clarify our terms, this is from Wiki:

In psychology, bicameralism is a controversial hypothesis which argues that the human brain once assumed a state known as a bicameral mind in which cognitive functions are divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking," and a second part which listens and obeys.

The term was coined by psychologist Julian Jaynes, who presented the idea in the 1976 book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, wherein he made the case that the bicameral mentality was the normal state of the human mind everywhere as recently as 3000 years ago. He used governmental bicameralism metaphorically to describe this state, where the stored up experience of the right hemisphere was transmitted to the left hemisphere via auditory hallucinations.

This mental model was replaced by the conscious mode of thought, which Jaynes argues is based on metaphorical language. The idea that language is necessary for subjective consciousness or higher forms of thought has been gaining in acceptance in recent years, with proponents such as Daniel Dennett, William Calvin, Merlin Donald, John Limber, Howard Margolis, and Jose Luis Bermudez.

Basically, I think what he's saying is that shamanism stems from a time when man's mind was formed differently. He calls it the 'bicameral mind' because it is about the right and left lobes interacting with one another in a way that they no longer do, and haven't since the invention of language. He believes that the 'spirits' or 'gods' who talked to the shamans were just an aspect of their own personalities (not consciousness, because Jaynes believes that human consciousness only began to exist when language began).

I've been wondering about this, and here's a couple of early thoughts on it, to throw into the ring.

First of all, I find it hard to believe that consciousness is dependent on language, as I have been beyond language in my shamanic experiences and I am definitely conscious at the time - I just don't know who I am. Or rather, I know who I am but it definitely isn't the Ishtar/Gill person who I spend most of my time with. So 'self awareness' could be an issue - but not consciousness, imho.

Secondly, the spirits/gods sometimes tell shamans what's going to happen in the future. So that raises the question, how would that be possible if it was just one part of the shaman's brain talking to the other part?

Just some food for thought there.

Ishtar -

Just for a start, consider "consciousness" vs. "self consciousness".

Consciousness recognizes a flock of geese rising from the valley as accurately, and actually way more accurately, than the self conscious observation that "the geese are flying out of the valley".

Consider the difference between the Panel of the Horses in the Chauvet Cave and my statement to you that "they put the three mares into the pasture in front of my house last week".

Language is the excrement of self-consciousness.

It seeks to safely codify the future from past "experience".

This is vastly different from the cognitive harmony of, for example, "the dreamtime", in which the future is irrelevant because of complete synthesis with the present and the past.

By the way, this does not mean that those people were unaware of the future. Rather, their harmony with "all that is" allowed them to clearly see and adapt to the future instead of using the broken self-conscious crutch of what happened in the past to mend the putative future with "history".

I'm not stating this as well as I would like.

My point is,

Consciousness is dynamic. Past, present and future are simultaneous in any event.

Self-Consciousness is static. Past, present and furure are separate events.


hoka hey


john

i think i understand what you mean John. It's like trying to explain to someone who doesn't understand why evil exists that good and evil are the same thing. They are two aspects of a greater whole.

i have often wondered if the part of the brain that controls speech also controls other communication functions. In my experience, the more i explore what i call the 'senses other than the physical five' the harder it becomes to communicate verbally.

dannan14 wrote:It's like trying to explain to someone who doesn't understand why evil exists that good and evil are the same thing. They are two aspects of a greater whole.

What - like apples and oranges are the same because they are both fruit?

Well, they are both basically spheres.
And they both have seeds towards the center.
But they sure grow in different climates.
I wonder if that has anything to do with their differences.
(Thickness of the skin being an obvious one.)

POST DELETED BY ISHTAR - 10 March 2008

which is a seriously attractive prospect to me at the moment

Somebody's cranky today.

POST DELETED BY ISHTAR 10 March 2008

YOu get a pass because you're just recovering.

POST DELETED BY ISHTAR 10 March 2008

Wow, thanks for all the hostility. i guess i'll just go back to reading and not posting.

dannan14 wrote:Wow, thanks for all the hostility. i guess i'll just go back to reading and not posting.

Well, I think if your posts are going to be like your last one, that might be a good idea (as opposed to an evil idea).

Don't let Ish upset you, D14.

Let's all be a little more respectful of each other, shall we?