Cave 13b - the 164k question
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
Beags - I'm just using it as a short hand term for the shamanic state of mind. That's what I mean by it - people have different terms for this state. The Australian aborgines call it Dreamtime. The modern shamans call it non ordinary reality. Mircae Eliade described it as a state of ecstasy - and it certainly can be ecstatic. Others call it stepping into another dimension. The Sumerians, the Vedics and the Norse called it the Underworld. Jeremy Narby calls it 'forest television'.
I know this state of mind to be a real thing and not something made up by anyone, as I experience it regularly. I've only read a synopsis of Jaynes' book, but it seemed to me that that was what being described.
I'm interested also about what you mean by 'it was debunked' as I can't imagine how anyone can debunk a state of mind. It would be like saying that happiness or sadness has been debunked.
Sorry, just noticed you said 'crackpot theory' not 'debunked'. But again, 'crackpot' is a personal value judgement, and often made by people who just don't understand. There's nothing crackpot about shamanism when you understand it.
I know this state of mind to be a real thing and not something made up by anyone, as I experience it regularly. I've only read a synopsis of Jaynes' book, but it seemed to me that that was what being described.
I'm interested also about what you mean by 'it was debunked' as I can't imagine how anyone can debunk a state of mind. It would be like saying that happiness or sadness has been debunked.

Sorry, just noticed you said 'crackpot theory' not 'debunked'. But again, 'crackpot' is a personal value judgement, and often made by people who just don't understand. There's nothing crackpot about shamanism when you understand it.
Last edited by Ishtar on Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Ishtar of Ishtar's Gate and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
You've spent too much with fundies, Min. Not everyone's like that.Minimalist wrote:Every people seems to be told that their god likes them best....even when he/she/it is kicking their asses all the time.

Ishtar of Ishtar's Gate and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16039
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Cool, I was curious.I'm just using it as a short hand term for the shamanic state of mind.
State of mind aside, he got his facts wrong.I know this state of mind to be a real thing and not something made up by anyone, as I experience it regularly. I've only read a synopsis of Jaynes' book, but it seemed to me that that was what being described.
I'm not commenting on shamanism or any other state of mind. I'm commenting on a book. A university psychology teacher wrote a theory involving archaeology/anthropology, and neuro-anatomy, etc. He made gross errors about mans history, the way the brain works physiologically, and the illness of schizophrenia. I'm not certain, but I believe he was refused tenure as a result.I'm interested also about what you mean by 'it was debunked' as I can't imagine how anyone can debunk a state of mind. It would be like saying that happiness or sadness has been debunked
These errors have nothing to do with any particular state of mind. Thanks for the info Ishtar.

all -
Anyone noticed the distinct faultline
Between
"Mythos"
And
"Logos"?
This,
From people who were
Living it.
john
Anyone noticed the distinct faultline
Between
"Mythos"
And
"Logos"?
This,
From people who were
Living it.
john
"Man is a marvellous curiosity. When he is at his very, very best he is sort of a low-grade nickel-plated angel; at his worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm."
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
Beagle -Beagle wrote:Cool, I was curious.I'm just using it as a short hand term for the shamanic state of mind.
State of mind aside, he got his facts wrong.I know this state of mind to be a real thing and not something made up by anyone, as I experience it regularly. I've only read a synopsis of Jaynes' book, but it seemed to me that that was what being described.
I'm not commenting on shamanism or any other state of mind. I'm commenting on a book. A university psychology teacher wrote a theory involving archaeology/anthropology, and neuro-anatomy, etc. He made gross errors about mans history, the way the brain works physiologically, and the illness of schizophrenia. I'm not certain, but I believe he was refused tenure as a result.I'm interested also about what you mean by 'it was debunked' as I can't imagine how anyone can debunk a state of mind. It would be like saying that happiness or sadness has been debunked
These errors have nothing to do with any particular state of mind. Thanks for the info Ishtar.
Specifically, which "facts" were "wrong"?
john
"Man is a marvellous curiosity. When he is at his very, very best he is sort of a low-grade nickel-plated angel; at his worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm."
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
Whew, it's been around 30 yrs. John. I may have to do a quick review to help you out there. But he theorized that until very recently, mankind thought in a schizophrenic way, and that only recently were we able to think in the manner that we do today.Specifically, which "facts" were "wrong"?
Schizophrenia is characterized by lack of or inappropriate affect, auditory hallucinations, loose associations of thought, and varying degrees of autism. With this disorganized thinking there is no possible way that a group of schizophrenics can maintain a Hunter/Gatherer culture or any other organized activity. And this is only simple Schiz. - not the paranoid kind.
I think he cited cases of savants doing the spectacular things that we're familiar with as evidence. Without getting into savants, that just demonstrated how little he knew the subject.
I seem to remember that he cited experiments doing electrical stimulation to certain sites of the brain. The pt. heard voices, and Jaynes made some statement about that being evidence that hallucinations were once normal.
I think he said that todays schizophrenics were born being a throwback or something resembling what mankind was until recently. But most schizophrenics are normal until around the age of 18.
There are more John, and if you're aware of something he said that you're wondering about, I might have an opinion on it. Again, I'm not talking about the man's philosophy, but just certain medical or archaeological facts.
Beagle -Beagle wrote:Whew, it's been around 30 yrs. John. I may have to do a quick review to help you out there. But he theorized that until very recently, mankind thought in a schizophrenic way, and that only recently were we able to think in the manner that we do today.Specifically, which "facts" were "wrong"?
Schizophrenia is characterized by lack of or inappropriate affect, auditory hallucinations, loose associations of thought, and varying degrees of autism. With this disorganized thinking there is no possible way that a group of schizophrenics can maintain a Hunter/Gatherer culture or any other organized activity. And this is only simple Schiz. - not the paranoid kind.
I think he cited cases of savants doing the spectacular things that we're familiar with as evidence. Without getting into savants, that just demonstrated how little he knew the subject.
I seem to remember that he cited experiments doing electrical stimulation to certain sites of the brain. The pt. heard voices, and Jaynes made some statement about that being evidence that hallucinations were once normal.
I think he said that todays schizophrenics were born being a throwback or something resembling what mankind was until recently. But most schizophrenics are normal until around the age of 18.
There are more John, and if you're aware of something he said that you're wondering about, I might have an opinion on it. Again, I'm not talking about the man's philosophy, but just certain medical or archaeological facts.
I think you are referring to the phenomenon
of
Shamanism,
Here.
From the perspective of people who
Go To College,
Then,
Have A Career
Composed Of The
Manipulation of the Residual $$'s
Of the Personal Housing Market.
I'm on the hunt
for knowledge,
aka understanding,
hoka hey
john
"Man is a marvellous curiosity. When he is at his very, very best he is sort of a low-grade nickel-plated angel; at his worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm."
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:06 am
- Location: Peekskill, NY
....John, thank you for introducing me to Jill Bolte Taylor! Her discription of her event that shut down her left hemisphere was beautiful, eloquent and a dead ringer of the last 3rd of a Psilocybin mushroom session....that dip into the sea/see of equanimity that leaves one for ever changed and connected.
I know discussion of illegal substances can derail this thread at times, so will leave it there.
Its been a while since I read Jaynes, but always thought he was on to something very important but was a bit too anxious to close the circle. I would prefer his "A-Ha!" to be left open to posthumosly flop around in the sunlight....
I have always thought that he might be addressing the "Tower of Babel" allegory, with the before being everyone speaking the ONE same language, and then the day came when they awoke with everyone speaking their own/different language....the right side came first THEN the left.
Perhaps the left brain developed independently to give the right hemisphere legs and a voice.
Adding John's link to Jill Bolte Taylor again, it is not to be missed:
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229
Does anyone know the earliest reference to "The Tower of Babel"?
I know discussion of illegal substances can derail this thread at times, so will leave it there.
Its been a while since I read Jaynes, but always thought he was on to something very important but was a bit too anxious to close the circle. I would prefer his "A-Ha!" to be left open to posthumosly flop around in the sunlight....
I have always thought that he might be addressing the "Tower of Babel" allegory, with the before being everyone speaking the ONE same language, and then the day came when they awoke with everyone speaking their own/different language....the right side came first THEN the left.
Perhaps the left brain developed independently to give the right hemisphere legs and a voice.
Adding John's link to Jill Bolte Taylor again, it is not to be missed:
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229
Does anyone know the earliest reference to "The Tower of Babel"?
Its more complicated than it seems.
If Jaynes is saying this, then I think it may be a misunderstanding. Shamans today think that schizophrenia is caused by the same or similar impulses that allow the shaman to journey, except that in the case of the schizophrenic, the process is beyond his control and thus he is at the mercy of voices and 'hallucinations'.Beagle wrote:Whew, it's been around 30 yrs. John. I may have to do a quick review to help you out there. But he theorized that until very recently, mankind thought in a schizophrenic way, and that only recently were we able to think in the manner that we do today.Specifically, which "facts" were "wrong"?
Schizophrenia is characterized by lack of or inappropriate affect, auditory hallucinations, loose associations of thought, and varying degrees of autism. With this disorganized thinking there is no possible way that a group of schizophrenics can maintain a Hunter/Gatherer culture or any other organized activity. And this is only simple Schiz. - not the paranoid kind.
Ancient man would not have been schizophrenic because he would have been in control of this experience, in the same way that shamans control it today. As you rightly point out, Beags, if ancient man had not been in control of it, he wouldn't have survived and we wouldn't be here today having this discussion. But there was an on-off switch on their forest televisions, as there is on mine. And there are ancient conventions that we learn that allow us to control the movie, somewhat, when we're in it.
So either Jaynes is wrong (having not actually read the book, I don't know) or it was misinterpreted by academics - wouldn't be the first time, would it?

However, there is a new book on the subject, Shamanism and Schizophrenia:
http://www.anthropology-online.de/Aga04/0012.html
It seems to me that schizophrenia may be the medical outcome of a society that suppresses or ignores the expansion of consciousness undertaken in more shamanically oriented societies. In my experience, when nature is suppressed it always does find a way to express itself. It has to find a way out, like grass poking up through a concrete pavement.4012 -- DEHNHARDT, RENE
Schamanismus und Schizophrenie
(Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XIX Volkskunde/Ethnologie. Abt. B Ethnologie 63)
Frankfurt/M.: Lang Verlag 2003
127 pp., Euro 25.10; ISBN 3-631-50885-9
Shamanism and schizophrenia
According to the author this is the first study on the relation of schizophrenia and shamanism which includes persons showing typical symptoms of schizophrenia who have not been treated in psychiatric institutions. The result of this qualitiative comparison is that there is a clear correspondence between Siberian shamans and persons with typical symptoms of schizophrenia.
Dehnhardt discusses opinions pro and contra the similarity of schizophrenia and shamanism, medical aspects of schizophrenia and its prevalence in different cultures, untreated psychoses, shamanic processes, and finally forms of altered consciousness and their control (trance, psychotic states, psychotropic substances).
The author found that there is a correlation between schizophrenia and shamanism while the former is not culturally integrated in western cultures whereas shamanism is - in the latter case there is often no possibility no notion of illness for these phenomena.
Ishtar of Ishtar's Gate and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
John, not sure where you're driving with this, but it sounds interesting. Please expand ...john wrote:all -
Anyone noticed the distinct faultline
Between
"Mythos"
And
"Logos"?
This,
From people who were
Living it.
John
Ishtar of Ishtar's Gate and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
John -
Thought is parent to the word - only when originated from within us. Once communicated to someone else or something else, then word (to the person or thing communicated to) is parent to the thought. Of course in the latter there must be a means of receiving that communication. Through the same token, deeds and/or events may also communicate the thought.
The intrepretation of that communication is another factor that can change the result or the meaning. Therefore the understanding of that thought can vary at each step of the way - most especially when language becomes a barrier either because of insufficient toolery within language to convey correctly and fully or because of different levels of understanding of that communication method.
Understanding may grow swiftly in the target or slowly, or possibly not mature at all.
Nature itself, as life does too, communicates on a constant basis to every living thing within its realm. We have multiple receptors to this communication - but how we understand is determined by lifelong experiences - and choice. A person brought up around animals will "learn" their communications - some better than others. People not brought up around animals will not understand them as well. Just as a person brought up in a household with a certain language - they learn the meaning without having to translate. When a language is learned later on in life we have to re-translate it to our base language - at least for a while until we have used it enough to build the neuro pathways or whatever. They say children learn faster than adults.
That is why we will not fully understand all that has gone before us (as in archaeology) - because we did not actually experience it for ouselves - we are merely drawing as impartial an understanding of it as is possible. A guess - albeit as educated as we can make of it using each our own experiences and understanding of the clues that are left.
Understanding from one entity to another will always change or be different because it involves multiplicity - not just one organism. Understanding is personal in that sense. Does that mean it is derived from self? Or "to" self?
The "me" creature is within us all - in all it's many facets and it must be satisfied. Don't ever let it get bored.
Mythos - logos - both are aspects - they are not the "thing". It's how we use both that make them powerful enough to have a meaning to us - our own interpretation of the one communicating them and what they are communicating.
Oneness can lead to boredom - as maturity before it's time can be boring to the young. Full and mature multiplicity can or might not lead to a more enriched and enjoyable oneness - or even multiness. Maybe even an omni-ness?
Thought is parent to the word - only when originated from within us. Once communicated to someone else or something else, then word (to the person or thing communicated to) is parent to the thought. Of course in the latter there must be a means of receiving that communication. Through the same token, deeds and/or events may also communicate the thought.
The intrepretation of that communication is another factor that can change the result or the meaning. Therefore the understanding of that thought can vary at each step of the way - most especially when language becomes a barrier either because of insufficient toolery within language to convey correctly and fully or because of different levels of understanding of that communication method.
Understanding may grow swiftly in the target or slowly, or possibly not mature at all.
Nature itself, as life does too, communicates on a constant basis to every living thing within its realm. We have multiple receptors to this communication - but how we understand is determined by lifelong experiences - and choice. A person brought up around animals will "learn" their communications - some better than others. People not brought up around animals will not understand them as well. Just as a person brought up in a household with a certain language - they learn the meaning without having to translate. When a language is learned later on in life we have to re-translate it to our base language - at least for a while until we have used it enough to build the neuro pathways or whatever. They say children learn faster than adults.
That is why we will not fully understand all that has gone before us (as in archaeology) - because we did not actually experience it for ouselves - we are merely drawing as impartial an understanding of it as is possible. A guess - albeit as educated as we can make of it using each our own experiences and understanding of the clues that are left.
Understanding from one entity to another will always change or be different because it involves multiplicity - not just one organism. Understanding is personal in that sense. Does that mean it is derived from self? Or "to" self?
The "me" creature is within us all - in all it's many facets and it must be satisfied. Don't ever let it get bored.
Mythos - logos - both are aspects - they are not the "thing". It's how we use both that make them powerful enough to have a meaning to us - our own interpretation of the one communicating them and what they are communicating.
Oneness can lead to boredom - as maturity before it's time can be boring to the young. Full and mature multiplicity can or might not lead to a more enriched and enjoyable oneness - or even multiness. Maybe even an omni-ness?
i'm not lookin' for who or what made the earth - just who got me dizzy by makin it spin
Ishtar wrote:John, not sure where you're driving with this, but it sounds interesting. Please expand ...john wrote:all -
Anyone noticed the distinct faultline
Between
"Mythos"
And
"Logos"?
This,
From people who were
Living it.
John
Ishtar -
"Brown & Dilke walked with me & back from the Christmas pantomime. I had not a dispute but a disquisition with Dilke, on various subjects; several things dovetailed in my mind, & once it struck me, what quality went to for a Man of Achievement especially in Literature & which Shakespeare possessed so enormously - I mean Negative Capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason - Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge."
Keats
This is one of the most magnificent descriptions of the Shamanic worldview I know, and by John Keats, no less!
It is also the main frontispiece quote to Charles Olson's, "The Special View of History." This slim volume is an absolute, complete necessity to read in the context of muthos and logos, which are two totally different animals, shamanism, history, language, and views of the space/time continuum.
Any paraphrase or quote I might cut from Olson's complete argument would only damage its brilliance.
Therefore, beg, buy or steal it, then read it,
And the discourse will begin.
john
"Man is a marvellous curiosity. When he is at his very, very best he is sort of a low-grade nickel-plated angel; at his worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm."
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
All -
Not to start a firestorm here, but,
Shakespeare as Shaman?
It fits.
hoka hey
john
Not to start a firestorm here, but,
Shakespeare as Shaman?
It fits.
hoka hey
john
"Man is a marvellous curiosity. When he is at his very, very best he is sort of a low-grade nickel-plated angel; at his worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm."
Mark Twain
Mark Twain