Is bicamerality bullshit?

First, I would like to say, having read Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind that I can state without reservation that it is completely unsupported by history, literary analysis, physiology, psychology, or indeed even theology, as has already been pointed out in detail by Arachnophilia. I am at a loss as to why Hoot Mon thinks this book amounts to anything more than wild speculation, however provocative and mildly interesting the thesis may be.Second, I think you should be less cavalier about changing the subject and going off-topic just to make some debatable pronouncement concerning the religious beliefs of any 'founding fathers' or supposed blessing of any god upon this particular political division of the planet. Create a PNT if you would like to support this assertion.Third, you should just allow us to bask in this rare occasion where we actually agree on something, namely that Jaynes' book is full of crap, instead of always trying to find some way to pick a fight, regardless of common ground.Be patient, I'm sure we can find something to disagree on in this forum soon enough. Edited by anglagard, : Messed up book title, can't find my copy at moment, cats may have placed in litterbox

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This has got to be one of the most hilarious, pathetic, and revealing statements I have ever seen in this forum.You clearly have absolutely no idea what Jaynes' meant by the term 'bicameral mind.' Clearly you have either not read his book or are not capable of understanding what he said. I think your only exposure and knowledge of what Jaynes' meant by the term is filtered through Hoot Mon's and maybe a few others posts, although you clearly do not understand even second-hand explanations of Jaynes' work.In a nutshell, the bicameral mind means that all people prior to some earthshaking event (like Thera) had no real consciousness as we understand the term, they only obeyed the voices in their head, a condition that is comparable to the worst cases of auditory hallucination present in hebephrenic schizophrenia today. This proposed ancient condition is supposedly due to the hyper-specialization of each hemisphere and an inability to coordinate thoughts between hemispheres, conditions that do not exist now, nor to anyone who has truly examined the thesis, plausibly existed in the past in any but an extreme minority of the clinically insane, if even that. Yet here you are, using the term bicameral, when you clearly know nothing about what it means and even worse, implying Christian salvation lies within the confines of a rubber room. Arguing that Christians, at least the christians you demand to characterize and judge, are clinically insane has got to be the greatest subversion of a religion from within I have ever encountered. You have embarrassed Christianity, it's devotees, and yourself. Yet the worst thing is, you don't know, and may indeed never know, how you have done such damage to your argument and your cause.But I find it revealing. I see the thought process at work:I read AIG/ICR/Hovind/Baugh, ad nauseaum therefore I know more about physics, chemistry, biology, and geology than anyone who ever lived.I read Hoot Mon's posts in EvC, therefore I know more about the bicameral mind than the originator of the concept, Jaynes, or anyone who actually bothered to either read his book and/or the critiques of his work.How often have I seen such absurd and egomaniacal claims torn to shreds. Yet how often do I see such claims endlessly repeated by those who evidently don't know or care just how stupid they appear.Go, and sin against your own professed religion, and indeed your own personal integrity, no more.Sheesh Buz Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.Edited by anglagard, : extra quote

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza