Posted by Mitchell on September 29, 2001, at 12:49:11
In reply to Now, about good and evil, - Mitch, posted by Mickey on September 29, 2001, at 10:13:35
> I have not read Julian Jaynes' "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" in about twenty five years or so.You must have read it shortly after it was printed, then. My copy is dusty now, but there are some on-line summaries that might let you consider the content without following every phrase of Jaynes' hypnotic tour of world history. Bear in mind, Jaynes was not a neurologist, and neither am I. That must mean I am eminently qualified to criticize my fellow non-neurologist's theories.
Jaynes proposal, though interesting and suggestive of some important concepts, is deeply flawed as an effort to apply neurology to human behavior, and fails as an assessment of the evolution of consciousness. Fundamentally, Jaynes "bicameral" left/right dichotomy fails by presuming that the right hemisphere now or ever governed unconscious thought and that the left hemisphere controls action. Information to suggest otherwise was available when Jaynes composed his fascinating essay, but more recent neurological research has added definition to the neurological topography that disputes Jaynes' hypothesis.
The more salient bicameral divisions of the mind, which could conceivably be applied to a revised interpretation of Jaynes' conclusions, have unconscious activity originating closer to the center of the brain, and movement directed in both cerebral hemispheres. But more accurately, emotion (to move), is driven in large part by mid-brain patterns - perhaps the "voices of the gods" to which Jaynes refers. And in the cerebral hemispheres, a fore/aft dichotomy is probably more accurate than a left/right dichotomy. The occipital, temporal and parietal lobes are more involved with sensation, while the frontal lobes are used for planning movement. But the dichotomy is not nearly so simple. Sensation and execution of movement for any particular body part are closely related vertically along the layers of the cortices - the neurons that feel fingers are very close to the ones that move fingers, and the same networks are involved in sensation and action. And the routing of neural activity, from perception to planning to execuction, is not a simple one-way street. Mental activity, even for some of the most simple actions, encompasses a complex array of feedback involving the basal ganglia and cerebellum, parts of the mid-brain and myriad cerebral nodes,.
I suspect the sheer amount of information Jaynes presents persuades many to accept his findings, though his analysis is flawed. Another basic flaw of Jaynes' work is that he incorrectly defines conscience as consciousness. The failure to separate conscience from consciousness deprives him of the understanding he needs to properly dissect conscience. Presuming consciousness to be self-awareness and a product of an erosion of left/right cerebral compartmentalization, he fails to recognize the neurological capacity for self-awareness among other non-human species. Self awareness is not a product of an eroded left/right dichotomy, but of vague onion-skin layers or zones from the inside of the brain outwards. And self-awareness is not conscience. Conscience is "other-awareness" and a recognition of the similarities and differences between self and other. Cerebral functions seem to improve our capacity for conscionable behavior, but reliance solely on cerebral constructs to define conscience, I suggest, is the essence of the forbidden fruit.
To return to my theory of the fall and the forbidden fruit, when the serpent tempted humankind with the knowledge of good and evil, it suggested that such knowledge would allow humans to know good and evil as does god. Clearly in that myth, the god or gods knowledge of good and evil was present - good and evil existed, humans just could not taste the fruit of that knowledge. So the myth seems to suggest that knowledge of good and evil was properly assigned to the "voices of the gods" which Jaynes claims are sub-human instincts and not trustworthy. I suggest that Jaynes' theories derived from a culture intoxicated by forbidden fruit, in which a codified knowledge of good and evil is presumed to be conscience. I suggest that, by personifying the "gods" and by making little wooden statues of them or three letter words to name them, we began to venture down the path toward moral death, drunk on forbidden fruit.
When we began to codify our god-like knowledge, we damaged the map back to Eden. Instead of knowing beauty and sustenance - all the trees that are pleasant to behold and good for food - we began to follow our misguided concepts of right and wrong, of good and evil. We no longer felt remorse when we killed for food, because our knowledge of good and evil said it is good to kill for food, and remorse was inappropriate. We soon forgot that when we kill a deer, we are killing something very much like ourselves. Our conscience became callused by layers of learned cerebral values. Instinct became lost and the "word of god" that would otherwise instruct our deepest feelings was replaced by the "word of man." Unabashed remorse for the ugliness of our mortal existence was repressed, perhaps planting the seed of mental disease and of more recent types of social conflict. Recognition of beauty was clouded, and soon we found it necessary to constantly cloth and adorn ourselves - to fabricate ersatz beauty. We can now call our enemies "evil" and never pay a thought to our own complicity in evil, or to the good in the hearts of our enemy. This poison fruit continues to threaten mankind with destruction. If we do not forsake our unwholesome diet, perhaps our culture will die.
poster:Mitchell
thread:11828
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20010927/msgs/11910.html