Origin of Ego Consciousness & Julian Jaynes

What needs do mythology and religion serve in today's world and in ancient times? Here we discuss the relationship between mythology, religion and science from mythological, religious and philosophical viewpoints.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

Evinnra,

For most of my waking consciousness, there is a constant chatter in my head. James called it a stream of consciousness in 1890. Thoughts need not take the shape of audio or visual words. But they often do in our word infested culture. Most everyone has had the experience of actually hearing something, smelling something, or seeing something, that wasn’t really there. Our brain has a way of tricking us. But as I stated earlier, there is a difference between the voice we hear when we have a song stuck in our head, and a ‘real’ hallucination such as Cindy describes in the case of a hypnogogic hallucination. ‘Real’ hallucinations happen to most people at some time in their life. But they aren’t the norm – for most people – most of the time.

Jaynes makes it clear, that the voices bicameral people heard, prior to the advent of writing, were not ‘figments of the imagination’. These bicameral folks listened to a voice actually produced by the right side of their brain and obeyed using the left side of their brain and as a result, there was peace and harmony throughout the land. There were “no private frustrations, no private ambitions” 5000 years ago in Mesopotamia. But 4000 years ago we have people who wrote those Mesopotamian letters I posted. Then we get a lot of whining, and threats, and bickering about money and people who are as perfectly self-centered as we are today.

I blame Walt Disney for theories like Jaynes’s. I know it sounds crazy but we Boomers grew up on Walt Disney in the 50s and 60s. By the 70s we were primed to believe in anything - and an actor and playwright like Jaynes was happy to provide us with fantasies that were couched in sophisticated language and tantalizing scholarship, and that are impossible to disprove.

It seems to me Ziang Xianlong is talking about an ‘internal monologue’ that can be likened to James’s stream of consciousness and the constant chatter in my head. And I find it perfectly appropriate to say this ‘internal monologue’ is the voice of God or the Dao. I agree with Campbell when he said that the mystery that is out there, where deities may reside, is the same as the mystery within, where the contents of the collective unconscious reside. This theory, or way of looking at things, is also impossible to prove or disprove. Yet Campbell’s is perfectly sensible, coherent, and rational to me. Jaynes’s is – well – sorry Cindy – a no sale. (As if my opinion matters :? )

* * * * * * *
NoMan notes that there is evidence of mythological thinking at least 100,000 years ago (and Campbell notes the earliest evidence of such 500,000 years ago) ... but evidence of mythological thinking is not evidence of a rational consciousness. In fact, the more developed the rational ego, the more likely it is to discount mythological thinking, which has been our trajectory the last five thousand of years or so - the beginning of which is documented in those pharaohs who stepped outside their mythological role in favor of the survival of the "me."


Similarly, child psychologists describe the childhood years as characterized by "mythological" or "magical" thinking, which eventually yields ground (as Jung has pointed out) to the "directed thinking" of developed rational consciousness (what we generally think of as "conscious" today). Of course, that associational or mythological thinking remains nevertheless just beneath consciousness - emerging most frequently in dreams, daydreams, art, visions, and such


... and sometimes erupting to swamp and overwhelm the conscious, rational ego (as in schizophrenia).

-Bodhi
Wow! I was so focused on wanting to cap on Jaynes I missed the purport of the Bodhi’s line posted in bold. I believe just the opposite, and yet, when I read his explanation it appears as sound and clear as ever. I really had to give this some thought. I’ll try to explain how I see things differently.

In my mythblog I started with an example of pre-mythological thinking. An adolescent male chimpanzee named Flint had lost his mother Flo. He couldn’t comprehend the finality of death. He wouldn’t move from the spot where his mother lay cold and motionless, and kept waiting for her to ‘wake-up’ and come back to life. His sister Fifi tried to help him, Jane Goodall said, but she was occupied with a child of her own. Flint refused to eat, his condition worsened, and only two weeks after Flo died, Flint died too.

Some comments on the web suggest that Jane Goodall may have gotten carried away anthropomorphizing the depression of Flint. He may have died they say, as a result of the disease that had killed his mother. But it is still a wonderful story to relate of what pre-mythological thinking must have been like for our species. The feelings must have been there first. But the rational interpretation of those feelings come much later.

When I began to write that mythblog, I was looking for a different story by another primatologist. It was something that was observed in the Tai National Park, a rain forest in Cote d’Ivoire, in West Africa. A female chimpanzee had been killed by a leopard in the middle of the night. Her body was mangled and sort of scattered about in one small area. The next morning when the chimpanzee group approached the scene of the crime, they stopped a distance away. The older chimps held all the younger ones back, except for the baby daughter of the mother who had been killed. She was prompted to go ahead and examine the remains of her mother, alone, while the rest of them waited in a group a short distance away.

We must have gone through a stage similar to the modern chimp sometime in our evolution. We have a reasonable sense, or guess, of the difference between chimp consciousness and human consciousness. But what about a period of time, in human prehistory where hominids of our lineage were between these two modes of consciousness – only partially aware of the passage of time and only partially aware of cause and effect relationships? This could have lasted, and most probably did last, a long, long time.

I have to tell you Bodhi, this is a tough call.

But if there were a time in our prehistory when we were only half aware of our predicament, when we were only half aware of the passage of time, when we were only half aware of cause and effect relationships, and only half aware that in order to live we must kill other living creatures that are consciously aware like ourselves; during this period, I would say, that we were not yet thinking mythologically.

It has to do with what we mean by ‘mythological thinking’. If mythological thinking includes wandering and wondering disconnected thoughts then why not say that the cow or the cat is thinking mythologically. I don’t see it that way even if Joe Campbell does. The only way you can have true mythological thinking is after you become fully conscious of your predicament as a human being, of cause and effect relationships, of the passage of time, and of the temporary condition of living things, including your loved ones and yourself.

The fairy tale world that two-year-olds live in is not the same as mythological thinking in my definition. Instead, fairy tales are a preparation spurred on by adults, for the horror that awaits. Only after the forbidden fruit is eaten, and the child gets a glimpse of this horrific experience we are calling ‘ego consciousness’ – only then, can true mythological thinking begin. Myth is necessarily ameliorative. But there must be something to ameliorate.

This is what I meant by ‘the awakening’. And your guess is as good as mine as to when it actually took place. I look for burials and artwork, and then subtract several tens of thousands of years from the oldest because the earliest particular examples we find are most likely not the first.
P25 It can only have been at some unrecorded moment in the course of the last 3.5 million years of these developments that in the human line the crisis occurred of that awakening to the mystery of death, and therewith of life, which – more than any physical transformation – elevated man above the level of the beasts “that live but know nothing of life, and that die and see death,” as Spengler remarks, “without knowing an thing about it.”



However, it is not until the period of Neanderthal Man in Europe, toward the close of the great Ice Ages, during the Riss-Wurm interglacial, that the first indubitable signs appear anywhere – namely, in burials of the dead and in reliquary shrines to the animals slain – of that recognition for the mysterium which marks the waking of the mythologically inspired “second mind.”

-Atlas of World Mythology, Vol 1, part 1, Joseph Campbell,
According to Wiki the Riss-Wurm interglaciation began about 130,000 years ago. I don’t think we have Neanderthal burials or religious shrines that old. The science of physical anthropology is constantly being revised and Joseph Campbell was writing over 20 years ago. From what I know, the oldest burials are not more than 70,000 years old and the oldest artwork not more than 100,000 years old.

However, we have plenty of tools much older than 100,000 years old. When one looks at these arrowheads, and thinks of the skill required to make them, one can’t help but imagine a sentient being responsible for them. We must have, at some period in our evolution, gone through a zombie stage; a state where we were half-aware of what was happening. But in my definition, in my way of thinking about it, I don’t consider this half-aware state “mythological thinking”. We had to feel the full force of our predicament, and get the big picture, before we could partake in mythological thinking.

In this same sense, I don’t think of the two year old child as thinking mythologically. That is our projection, as ‘rationally ego-conscious’ adults onto the thinking of the little tots. If everyone died at the age of three, we wouldn’t need mythological thinking. This is the way it must have been prior to the awakening of the mythological mind in our evolution.

An analogy can be made with Campbell’s description of Indian meditation:

A – waking consciousness

U – dream consciousness

M – deep dreamless sleep

The yogi, in meditation, goes through these stages of consciousness achieving (2) dream consciousness and (3) deep dreamless sleep while fully aware. Analogously, a mythology achieves the child-like wonder (of a two year old child) or undifferentiating selflessness (of a two month old child) while fully aware. But since the babe and child has not yet acquired the big picture of ‘rational ego consciousness’ I don’t consider it to be mythological thinking in its true form.

In the full blown case of paranoid schizophrenia the person has rejected their ‘rational ego-consciousness’ so I don’t consider that mythological thinking either. It might be thought of as anti-mythological thinking. You see, the opposite of rational thought is irrational thought. But irrational thought need not necessarily be mythical. But the opposite if mythological thought is anti-mythological thought – or we could call it ‘mythoillogical’ thinking. How’s that for a new word?

Mythological thinking, by my definition, harmonizes the ‘rational conscious-ego’ of the psyche with the desires and fears of the psyche. I reject the idea that the psyche operates like a balance scale with 'rational ego-consciousness' wieghing on one side and 'mythological thinking' wieghing in on the other.

tough and interesting question i must say -

maybe i should have stuck with yesterdays mantra.

- NoMan

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Disagreement is a fine thing, I think, noman, when it leaves us thinking and wanting to learn more. :)

And a tidbit--command hallucinations are common among some people with schizophrenia or other so-called psychotic disorders in that they feel compelled to obey the directives imparted by a hallucinated voice. This is one example of what Jaynes called "a vestige of the bicameral mind."

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Cindy B. wrote: This sort of experience occurs along the borderline or threshold of consciousness and unconsciousness, and because the ego or "I" is not yet completely suppressed, the experience does register in awareness as a sort of dreamy consciousness. This state of mind doesn't last long, of course, so soon consciousness gives way and one falls into unconsciousness, into sleep. During certain stages of sleep the hallucinatory again holds sway--one dreams. Dreaming sleep occurs at a level of the unconscious near the threshold of consciousness, the reason why on occasion segments of dreams can register in conscious awareness and be acknowledged by the ego.
Fantastic , clear explanation Cindy, thank you.
A hallucination is no more than a perceptual event that arises wholly from within, and research has shown that hallucinatory experiences of various types are common among all people, that is, among so-called “normal” people as well as among the “mentally disturbed or disordered.” This happens to be one bit of supporting evidence for Jaynes’ theory of the bicameral mind since the experience of what is hallucinatory is a universal aspect of human mentality. While it’s true that the modern fields of psychiatry and clinical psychology in the West tend to view most hallucinations as "distorted perceptual events" and maladaptive, one must keep in mind that those experiences are being viewed from within a circumscribed social context of a particular sort; also, in practice it’s only when hallucinatory experiences interfere with a person’s ability to recognize what is conventionally termed and agreed upon as “reality” such that he can no longer navigate that reality whether he agrees with it or not, and thereby take care of himself in today’s society (and without causing harm to himself or to others while doing so), does a need for treatment arise.
This is exactly how I would have described the difference between the sane functioning and insane functioning of the mind. If one finds evidence in one’s context for the validity of a perception, the perception is 'true'. If I see a fairy in my garden but nobody else whom I can trust sees her, the fairy is the product of my imagination.
P.S. I agree with you, Evinnra, when you said that "the self is a process." This recognition eludes many, I think. :wink:
Great! Perhaps the tides are changing … :)
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Rational ego-consciousness can be developed and reinforced to varying degrees. That is why I was delighted finding the paper arguing that the Dao ‘speaks’. Zhang Xianglong (2004) points out that our internal monologue we produce - semi-consciously or deliberately - obviously has a subjectively influenced content, but this content is not coming from nowhere. I would think the ontological priority of a self existing before internal language is used is what his paper would support but whether this self is consciously or semi-consciously perceived could be further debated.

The self is a process – in my opinion- it is influenced by our perceivable context, successful habits and something eternal within. Block access to any of these contributors and psychological problems or even mental illness inevitably follows. –Evinnra
Evinnra,

For most of my waking consciousness, there is a constant chatter in my head. James called it a stream of consciousness in 1890. Thoughts need not take the shape of audio or visual words. But they often do in our word infested culture. Most everyone has had the experience of actually hearing something, smelling something, or seeing something, that wasn’t really there. Our brain has a way of tricking us. But as I stated earlier, there is a difference between the voice we hear when we have a song stuck in our head, and a ‘real’ hallucination such as Cindy describes in the case of a hypnogogic hallucination. ‘Real’ hallucinations happen to most people at some time in their life. But they aren’t the norm – for most people – most of the time.

Jaynes makes it clear, that the voices bicameral people heard, prior to the advent of writing, were not ‘figments of the imagination’. These bicameral folks listened to a voice actually produced by the right side of their brain and obeyed using the left side of their brain and as a result, there was peace and harmony throughout the land. There were “no private frustrations, no private ambitions” 5000 years ago in Mesopotamia. But 4000 years ago we have people who wrote those Mesopotamian letters I posted. Then we get a lot of whining, and threats, and bickering about money and people who are as perfectly self-centered as we are today.

I blame Walt Disney for theories like Jaynes’s. I know it sounds crazy but we Boomers grew up on Walt Disney in the 50s and 60s. By the 70s we were primed to believe in anything - and an actor and playwright like Jaynes was happy to provide us with fantasies that were couched in sophisticated language and tantalizing scholarship, and that are impossible to disprove.

It seems to me Ziang Xianlong is talking about an ‘internal monologue’ that can be likened to James’s stream of consciousness and the constant chatter in my head. And I find it perfectly appropriate to say this ‘internal monologue’ is the voice of God or the Dao. I agree with Campbell when he said that the mystery that is out there, where deities may reside, is the same as the mystery within, where the contents of the collective unconscious reside. This theory, or way of looking at things, is also impossible to prove or disprove. Yet Campbell’s is perfectly sensible, coherent, and rational to me. Jaynes’s is – well – sorry Cindy – a no sale. (As if my opinion matters) – NoMan


NoMan,

It seems I committed the sin of misrepresenting a well written paper and I can’t work out what made you to think that in my opinion Zhang Xianglong would argue; ‘this ‘internal monologue’ is the voice of God or the Dao’. It is the precise opposite, which Xianglong points out, that the internal monologue – since it is manifested in words – is already subjectively influenced, therefore it is not equal to what IS revealed by the Dao. However, Xianglong explicitly argues that the causal link between the Dao and the formation of the words in our internal monologue can NOT be denied.
… for Heidegger and for Laozi and Zhuangzi, language or “speaking” has two kinds of meaning, one which is the means or symbol system used to convey information, the other of which is the primordial, purely disclosing ontological region or realm of occurrence. The first is only for ready-to-hand (vorhanden) being to make contact with one another and express or convey the ideas, thought, or concepts in their minds. The truthfulness of this kind of linguistic activity only lies in the correspondence between external “actual states of affairs” and “statements” or “formal propositions”. In this sense we can say that this kind of linguistic activity is confined to conceptual or ideal modes of “small language”. It presupposes and reinforces the dualistic ontological and epistemological division between subject and object. Conversely, the second view of language holds that primordial speaking or dao (saying) is prior to any dualistic ontology or epistemology. “In the beginning was the word (dao, logos)”; this dao and the most fundamental substance (being itself or perfect dao) form a one-into-two and two-into – one relation of mutual, constitutive evocation. Heidegger called this “Ereignis” (self-appropriation). In Daosim it is shown through the various ways that “return is the movement of the dao.” In the places in their works that Laozi and Zhuangzi speaks of “wordless” or “nameless”, in fact both are denying that concept-expressing small language, or human language, can reach the perfect dao, though this is not to completely deny a relationship between language and dao; to the contrary, this kind of expression precisely aims at using “return” or “losing” small language in order to attain the great language of the dao. Otherwise, the “irregular formulations” of Laozi and Zhuangzi, like “eternal name” , “its name does not depart”, “great saying,” and “roam with the maker of things” will have no justification. (Zhang Xianglong : Heidegger’s view of Language, found in Robin R. Wang (ed.) (2004) Chinese Philosophy in and Era of Globalization, State University of New York Press, pp. 206-207) My highlights in bold and underlined.
I too agree with Joseph Campbell that: “ … the mystery that is out there, where deities may reside, is the same as the mystery within, where the contents of the collective unconscious reside. This theory, or way of looking at things, is also impossible to prove or disprove. – NoMan”.

The impossibility of proving that the collective unconscious produces the myth within lies simply in the impossibility of empirically validating individual sense experiences. :!: Yet, we do speak and the ability to use language is common to all humans, which can only occur if there is at least some agreement between the communicating entities about some truths. No?

This morning I woke up with the idea that the bicameral mind is in fact more restricted from experiencing the ‘truest’ or ‘clearest’ sense of the Dao than the ego-conscious mind is. Why is that? As I gather, the bicameral mind receives the voices from an already defined or set archetypal source – say the god Aries or Venus or the notion of ‘tree’, ‘lightning’, 'summer', 'love' etc.. The ego-conscious mind, the more ego-conscious it is, the clearer it can discern its own limiting factors, hence the sharper it can discern individual sensations. Would there be any point in regressing into a bicameral state of mind if we can do better with what we already have? Would it be anyone’s choice made freely without coercion?
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss »

noman wrote: It has to do with what we mean by ‘mythological thinking’. If mythological thinking includes wandering and wondering disconnected thoughts then why not say that the cow or the cat is thinking mythologically. I don’t see it that way even if Joe Campbell does. The only way you can have true mythological thinking is after you become fully conscious of your predicament as a human being, of cause and effect relationships, of the passage of time, and of the temporary condition of living things, including your loved ones and yourself.
I appreciate your explanation of your reasoning, Noman. Part of the value of these forums is that we have the chance to "think aloud."

You are right when you say "it has to do with what we mean by mythological thinking." Very true. Nevertheless, the definition you've come up with on your own is not the understanding of the term "mythological thinking" universally accepted in mythology, anthropology, psychology, child development, theology, philosophy, and related fields - and we're not talking just Joseph Campbell or Jungians, but people who take issue with Joseph Campbell and those have never read him or heard of the man.

Mythological thinking, as explored and understood by individuals ranging from Bob Segal, Wendy Doniger and William Doty (mythologists who have all expressed criticism of Campbell), by transpersonalists like Ken Wilber (who criticizes Campbell in his later work), Walter Burkett (an authority on the relationship of biology to myth, who includes not a single reference to Campell in any of the heavily footnoted books of his I own), anthropologist Victor Turner (who to the best of my knowledge never discusses Campbell), child developmental psychologist Jean Piaget, theologist Rudolf Bultmann, and so on ad infinitum, is, by definition irrational - it stands apart from and outside the rational process of the conscious ego.

(I provide the above list not to bolster my "side" of an argument, but to give a sense that this is not a term I - or Joseph Campbell - pulled out of the blue.)

Personally, I believe "mythological thinking" is a misnomer - it would be better called "mythological consciousness" - but I didn't coin the term. "Mythological thinking" is a long known and recognized dynamic with common characteristics, characteristics identified and observed among primal cultures by anthropologists, documented in childhood by child psychologists between the ages of two and four (the kids, not the psychologists, are that age!), and identified by psychologists in schizophrenic episodes.

The "rational thought and interpretation" you allude to is a product of the conscious, rational ego and logical thinking, as juxtaposed with "irrational," unconscious mythological thinking (sometimes used interchangeably with "magical thinking," which might give a sense of how the term is generally understood).

Mythological thinking has dreamlike qualities and is characterized by "symbolic thinking". Inanimate objects (inanimate from the perspective of a waking, rational ego-consciousness) are endowed with life - e.g. a rock, a spring, a tree, a mountain, the sea, the sun ... or a teddy bear. There is little sense of the boundaries between self and Other, and a tendency to link internal states to associated external conditions (e.g., a child who believes "It's raining because I am sad," or a Maori woman who believes her pregnancy is caused by the Moon). The passage of time is neither perceived nor understood the way it is in our modern culture, as a linear process - but is fluid and cyclical, experienced in the now, with only a vague sense of past or future

(so while the seasons and the phases of the moon may be noted, there's no sense of three years ago or two weeks from tomorrow).

Animals (and rocks, trees, butterflies) are experienced as people of a different kind with their own thoughts and feelings, and are able to shift shape just like in dream - and it's not at all unusual to interact with with invisible beings (hmm .... my own playful definition of God has long been one's imaginary childhood friend writ large). Cause and effect is determined not by rational logic, but by association (become pregnant by swallowing a seed, the rise of Sirius causes the Nile to flood, Geminis are excessively verbose).

Numerous primal cultures still exist today which exhibit mythological or magical thinking as the prevailing mode of consciousness, though they are fading. Here individual identity is a vastly different experience from your or my sense of the "me" we be. In these tribal cultures individual consciousness proves fluid and porous, with individuals having the ability to shift back and forth between human and animal forms (e.g. the shamanic exerience). It's not unusual at all to have visions and hear voices that seem to come from outside oneself, whether communciations from the gods, spirits, ancestors, or such.

Of course these cultures are in collision with civilization, rapidly disappearing from the rainforests of New Guinea and the Amazon basin - but two of the best examples of mythological thinking are the Australian aborigines, for whom the alcheringa - or Dreamtime - is not some distant golden age, as anthropologists first thought, but the timeless, dreamlike world experienced every day, and the Koyukon natives in sub-arctic North America whose "Distant Time" is much the same. These peoples don't just tell myths - they live inside the myth. (That's what defines mythological consciousness, call it what one will.)

The aborigines follow "dream tracks" across the desert, and so become Salamander or Snake and have the same experience as the ancestors have had in Dreamtime for countless, timeless generations (Campbell points out this is perhaps the oldest culture on the planet, stretching back 40,000 years - and indeed, we see similarities between their rock art today and the cave paintings of the Paleolithic era in Europe).

Noman writes
The fairy tale world that two-year-olds live in is not the same as mythological thinking in my definition. Instead, fairy tales are a preparation spurred on by adults, for the horror that awaits. Only after the forbidden fruit is eaten, and the child gets a glimpse of this horrific experience we are calling ‘ego consciousness’ – only then, can true mythological thinking begin.


But you admit two-year olds live in a fairy tale world - like "primitive" man, they inhabit a mythological world. That's the very definition of mythological thinking! Watch any three year old playing outside, and it's clear they live in a fairy tale world even if they're never told a fairy tale.

Mythological or magical thinking in childhood marks what Jean Piaget termed the pre-operational stage, generally between the ages of two and four - the same diffuse sense of self and an inability to fully distinguish between self and other, the same projection of life onto inanimate objects, the same sense of outside conditions being related to internal states. Parents with an understanding of symbol and myth often remark on how valuabe a tool that is for relating to and understanding what their child wants, needs, and how their child thinks (especially when your child assigns personalities to a doll, or a wagon, or a chair, or a car).

There's plenty of info on this buried in the literature on child development - the correspondence between this phase of childhood and what we know of primal cultures is difficult to deny.

In the modern western world children are taught to sublimate symbolic thinking with concrete scientific logical thinking (a characteristic of the rational conscious ego - marking the end, not the beginning, of mythological thinking). It nevertheless stays with us beneath the surface of consciousness throughout our life; mythological thinking is only repressed, and can exert its influence during times of stress and fear

... which brings us to schizophrenia and other mental disease.

Here, too, mythological thinking is well documented (the exhaustive research of Carl Jung and of John Weir Perry immediately springs to mind - both spent years working and living among schizophrenic patients - but there are even more studies on the subject by non-Jungians).

Noman writes:
In the full blown case of paranoid schizophrenia the person has rejected their ‘rational ego-consciousness’ so I don’t consider that mythological thinking either. It might be thought of as anti-mythological thinking. You see, the opposite of rational thought is irrational thought. But irrational thought need not necessarily be mythical. But the opposite if mythological thought is anti-mythological thought – or we could call it ‘mythoillogical’ thinking. How’s that for a new word?
Wow - I hardly know where to begin.

Irrational thinking is itself a contradition in terms. Thinking is a logical process; irrational states - dreaming, daydreaming, meditating, altered states absent the rational ego - can be considered the opposite of rational thinking only if the second story of a building is the opposite of the attic. In modern humans both are part of the same psyche, with ego the tip of the iceberg jutting up above the surface of conscious awareness and the bulk below. (Of course, "mythological thinking" is itself an inadequate term, as it was coined by the rational mind, which thinks about consciousness only in terms of thinking, even when its trying not to ....).

Schizophrenia is not a rejection of one's rational ego-consciousness (that phrasing really makes no sense, for it implies the ego has made the choice to reject itself); rather, consciousness is swamped, invaded by archetypal (i.e. mythological) energies and images, and the individual responds to and is possessed by these archetypal forces.

The correspondence between the schizophrenic state and mythology is uncanny. Speaking of the schizophrenic, Joseph Campbell states:
Let us ask first about the waters into which he has descended. They are the same, as we have said, as those of the mystical experience. What, then, is their character? What are their properties and what does it take to swim?

They are the waters of the universal archetypes of mythology. All my life, as a student of mythologies, I have been working with these archetypes, and I can tell you, they do exist.

Campbell, Myths to Live By, p. 209
Joseph Campbell did not discover the appearance of mythological motifs in the schizophrenic experience; that was brought to his attention by John Weir Perry, a psychiatrist and recognized expert on schizophrenia, who documented that the archetypal imagery that arises during schizotypal episodes aims at a "reorganization of the Self" on the part of the unconscious psyche, and the course of the condition, if allowed to unfold naturally, follows the pattern of the hero's journey that Campbell identified in myth (separation/initiation/return), with images of kingship, virgin birth, and other major mythological motifs emerging.

Primal cultures, as you pointed out in an earlier post, didn't treat this as a mental illness, but as the shamanic crisis - and what was their remedy? A vision quest (or hero's journey).

You can't get much more mythological than that!

Of course, we treat schizophrenia today with drugs and institutionalization rather than vision quests. But there's plenty of documentation for a mythic perspective outside Jung & Campbell. From the Psychological Wiki:
Magical thinking is often intensified in mental illnesses such as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), clinical depression or schizotypal personality disorder. In each it can take a different form peculiar to the particular illness. In OCD, it is often used in ritual fashion to ameliorate the dread and risk of various dangerous possibilities, regardless of whether it has real effects on the object of fear. It contributes more to peace of mind, in that the person now feels they can engage in a risky activity more safely.

This is not unlike magical thinking in non-afflicted individuals; lucky garments and activities are common in the sports world. It begins to interfere with life when those activities deemed risky are routine and everyday, such as meeting others, using a public toilet, crossing a busy intersection, or eating. It is important to note, however, that not all people with OCD engage in a strict form of magical thinking, as many are fully conscious that the rationalizations with which they justify their obsessions or compulsions to themselves and others are not 'reasonable' in an ordinary sense of that word.

Psychometric evidence has been obtained showing a correlation between psychosis and magical thinking. It has been found that those who scored highest on magical thinking showed a predisposition to psychosis (Eckblad & Chapman, 1983). Schizophrenic patients scored higher on a magical thinking scale than non-schizophrenic psychiatric patients or normal subjects (George & Neufeld, 1987). Subjects believing in extraordinary phenomena scored higher on the Schizophrenia subscale of the MMPI than non-believers (Windholz & Diamant, 1974). Research has also shown that paranormal beliefs, including magical thinking, are significantly and positively correlated with people experiencing psychosis from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (e.g., Thalbourne and French, 1995).
(Oh great - I'm clearly at risk for psychosis!)

Mythological thinking is a function of the collective psyche - mythology itself is fueled by archetypes, which are interpersonal (though contents of the archetype may be colored by individual experience); the rational, conscious ego is itself a small and relatively recent production of the psyche.

Of course, you are free to define mythological thinking any way you please, in much the same way as you're free to define German as the language spoken by people native to the Amazon Basin - but no matter how rigorous and consistent you might be in your application of the term, there'll be lots of confusion when discussing this with the larger number who follow long accepted usage and define that term as the language spoken by natives of Germany.

Similarly, you'll spend a lot of time clearing up misunderstandings and explaining yourself if you apply your definition of mythological thinking in discussions with mythologists, anthropologists, psychologists, theologians, philosophers, etc.

To explore this further, I would recommend our old friends Joe & C.G. - particularly the first 100 pages of Primitive Mythology which, in addition to discussing IRMs, also amply demonstrate the play-sphere members of primal cultures inhabit (here Campbell - like Johann Huizinga, Victor Turner and others - illustrates how ritual and myth arise out of play in primal cultures - hence Huizinga's title, Homo Ludens - "Man the Player"). One example that stands out in memory from this section is an excerpt from Leo Frobenius about a small child playing with a spent match who is suddenly very truly frightened by the witch, which the match has become as she plays ... mythological thinking in action.

Also key in understanding this concept is the first section of Jung's seminal work (which finalized his excommunication by Freud), Symbols of Transformation - an essay entitled "Two Kinds of Thinking." Here Jung explores the difference between directed thinking, which is linear, learned, goal-oriented, the kind of thinking we strive for in our consciousness, and symbolic thinking - circular; often disorienting and confusing to consciousness, not directed by consciousness, more given over to play and fantasy.

Jung points out this is a phylogenetically older form of consciousness, the default position for our species - e.g., when we're not building a bridge or doing our taxes, which requries directed thinking and conscious attention, ego relaxes its grip and we tend to drift and daydream, one thought or image leading to dozens or hundreds of loosely associated thoughts and images - and even when we are building a bridge or doing our taxes and trying to concentrate, it's a common experience to find ourselves carried off on tangents as associated thoughts, images, and memories arise seemingly unbidden, leading to other associated thoughts and images, and suddenly we are miles away ...

No surprise, an Australian aborigine or Koyukon native - or Palelolithic hunter - didn't spend a lot of time engineering skyscrapers and doing taxes, so had little need until recently to develop directed thinking and a sharply defined sense of ego-consciousness.
Mythological symbols touch and exhilarate centers of life beyond the reach of vocabularies of reason and coercion. The light-world modes of experience and thought were late, very late, developments in the biological prehistory of our species . . .

Joseph Campbell, Creative Mythology
Mythological thinking is characteristic of dream, daydream, imagination, ritual, psychedelics, and is the very basis of creativity (heck - even for us unartistic types, how often has concentrating and "thinking" about a problem failed to yield a solution ... but then, once we're singing in the shower and the conscious ego loosens its hold a bit, suddenly a solution surfaces while we daydream?). This form of consciousness relies on symbol and image a good deal (hence the label, "mythological" thinking), while directed thinking finds itself more at home with words and thought.

You are of course free to disagree with the broad consensus in so many fields - there's nothing wrong with being a maverick.

I happen to agree with the consensus, not because of the authorities who can be cited, but because this understanding, whether we call it mythological thinking, magical thinking, symbolic thinking, associational thinking, mythological consciousness, or brfflgumph, matches my personal experiences with schizophrenics, with children (which trigger vague remembrances and brief images of my own inner experience during that period of life), with members of more mythically-oriented primal cultures who have a very different consciousness than me, and corresponds to my own immersion in mythology.

Ahh, but the witching hour approaches - time for me to hit the sack and slip back into mythological consciousness ...

Metaphorically Yours,
bodhibliss
Last edited by bodhibliss on Fri Aug 21, 2009 6:24 pm, edited 7 times in total.

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

A terrific summarization, bodhibliss. I’m just going to offer a few comments of my own.

bodhibliss wrote:Mythological thinking…is, by definition irrational - it stands apart from and outside the rational process of the consious ego.
Again, semantics on my part to come. Personally I prefer the more contemporary term “nonrational” since even among professionals and academics, the lay sense of “irrational” as denoting something silly or of less value tends to color the picture in some way. As you pointed out, that which arises from consciousness is termed “rational” and that which arises from unconsciousness is “nonrational.” Any manifestation of the psyche as we can know it and experience it today is, of course, the product of both types of mental processing.

bodhibliss wrote:Personally, I believe "mythological thinking" is a misnomer - it would be better called "mythological consciousness" - but I didn't coin the term.
And more semantics. ;) My personal choice would be “mythological psyche” given that human mentality since the rise of consciousness is always a blend of both the conscious and the unconscious, the rational and the nonrational. The term “consciousness” by definition excludes unconsciousness or the unconscious. What we today tend to describe and define as “mythological” incorporates both types of mental processing and contents in varying degrees, and the term “psyche" encompasses both consciousness and unconsciousness.

bodhibliss wrote:…Dreamtime…These peoples don't just tell myths - they live inside the myth.
And a perfect example of the experiential realism that can be inherent in the mythical. Also, it’s important to keep in mind, I think, that the term “myth” and its derivatives as we use these terms today are the result of mind reflecting upon mind, so to speak, and that this perspective arose at a particular time and from within a particular psychosocial context that still exists today. None of those whom we look upon and declare to be or have been living within a “mythological” context view or viewed their lives and experiences in this way; this is and was their reality just as we collectively define “reality” today.

bodhibliss wrote:Schizophrenia is not a rejection of one's rational ego-consciousness (that phrasing really makes no sense, for it implies the ego has made the choice to reject itself); rather, consciousness is swamped, invaded by archetypal (i.e. mythological) energies and images.
Exactly. It’s important to remember, too, that schizophrenia is not exclusively a psychological phenomenon and is a brain disorder. No one “chooses” to be schizophrenic.

bodhibliss wrote:Mythological thinking is a function of the collective psyche - mythology itself is fueled by archetypes, which are interpersonal (though contents of the archetype may be colored by individual experience); the rational, conscious ego is itself a small and relatively recent production of the psyche.
Yep, humans are babes in the woods when it comes to this thing called “consciousness,” and as you, I, and Jaynes have pointed out in this thread, we’re still evolving and learning how to be “conscious beings.” ;)


Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss »

Thanks, Cindy,

for your expansions and amplifications. Might be semantics, but the more precise the language, the clearer the meaning

... and I was plenty fuzzy - more so, the closer midnight came (and then I responded after that in another thread on Egyptian religion that kept me up till 2 a.m., so was even fuzzier and clumsier in my wording ...

Here's something you might find interesting, especially as it sheds some light on the role different hemispheres of the brain play in our development.

Nikolai N. Nikolaenko, at the I. M. Sechenov Institute of Evolutionary Physiology and Biochemistry,Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia, published a research article in 2003, entitled Artistic Thinking and Cerbral Symmetry, that offers plenty of food for thought (Nikolaenko has also published other wonderfully details articles over the last 20 years on the different hemispheres of the brain, including research he's conducted related to child development).

The article is too detailed to cover everything in it (and I've been spending waaaay too much time on these boards the past couple days - forgot how much fun this is ... nerds have a weird idea of R & R), but I'll include a few juicy morsels. The subject of the study is an artist who suffered a debilitating accident that heavily damaged one of the hemispheres of the brain:
Three years ago she was struck on the sidewalk by a passing vehicle. After two trepanations of the skull, she remained in coma for three months, in critical condition.When at last she opened her eyes she did not comprehend questions that were put to her, and recognized no one, not even her mother. It was dangerous to approach her, as she would bite and scratch. Her bed was barred, and she resembled a beast in a cage. During the months that followed she suffered severe dysfunctions of speech and verbal memory.Ten months after the injury, TL took a pencil in her hands for the first time
.

Absent the ability to form language, "her consciousness being diminished," what does she draw?

Nikolaenko notes "... rough, sometimes terrifying, but always eloquent images of people and animals" - with features relevant to our discussion of Jaynes:
The same feature is characteristic of the pictures of animals: thus, the heads,hooves and tails of the horses are often drawn heavier and larger than the body,which makes them look like galloping and romping colts ... It should be mentioned that at the dawn of human civilization, in the Stone Age, pictures of bison were marked by unusually large humps and sagging skin folds, which helped these representations of animals realistically convey a spontaneous impression.
Of course the author does not reference Jaynes at all - he is not seeking supporting evidence for Jaynes' theory, but simply studying the workings of the human brain

... but it is intriguing that, in the absence of speech, logic, and rational ego-consciousness, she produces art on a par with that of paleolithic man (and young children, as the author notes in the same paragraph).

He also finds evidence of characteristics common to Neolithic art, especially in the portrayal of elongated hands and feet ... and then the theme of her work is also fascinating, as well as the observations of the team of scientists studying her case:
There is evidence to suppose that the activity (or in this particular case, the earlier recovery of the activity) of the right hemisphere is responsible for the formation of such an internal map of the body space. It is interesting to note that during the early stages of her recovery TL was mostly drawn to the representation of mythological characters (devils) and creatures, such as griffins, winged horses, and sphinxes (emphasis mine).

What is the origin of these chimerical creatures, familiar to us from the history of art? Presumably, we are again dealing here with a phase, mainly mythological, in the development of the child's consciousness. The complex of sensations and visual images induces combined impressions as a whole, devoid of any in-depth analysis; they are stored in memory without being mentally processed, and can emerge into consciousness from time to time. These conclusions are consistent with the conception of the archaic consciousness(emphasis again mine), filled with concrete time events; it gives preference to acquired knowledge and shows no interest in knowledge given a priori. As Gurevich states [1972], it is what comprises the experience itself and makes its integral part, which cannot be cut out of the life texture, that is important for such consciousness. This brings to mind Eisenstein'sidea of "the unity and consequence, and simultaneity, continuously existing inside us." Every one of us can have an insight identical to the insight of the ancestor.
WOW!
Gradually, as verbal activity was increasing and the vocabulary extending (i.e.along with the functional recovery of the left verbal-logical hemisphere), TL's draw-ings changed again. In this period, rhythm and symmetry as the elements of ornamental composition appeared.

This period of recovery is characterized by the tendency to represent an objective geometry of space with the use of drawing techniques that make the representations more informative. ... The subject here is organizedby horizontal lines, as in a book. This way of spatial rendering and drawing implies that there is a single fixed viewpoint, an indivisible organized field of vision. The same method is characteristic of one of the phases of developing spatial relations between objects in children's drawings. This device can often be seen in pictures and images from ancient Egypt and Sumer. This is also typical of archaic societies (Nordic peoples,some African cultures, etc.). As a rule, such pictures are narrative and informative.
Again, wow! As language skills develop and consciousness starts to recover, her art corresponds to that of Sumer & Egypt - which coincidentally (?) corresponds to Jaynes' theories about language and the beginnings of the development of conscious awareness as we know it today, right down to the time period in question!
Thus we suppose that the unique recovery of TL's consciousness and creative activity after a severe brain trauma (accompanied by a prolonged coma) is, first of all, the result of right-hemispheric functional activity. Verbal memory and the figurative thinking of the right hemisphere made it possible for TL to draw. In addition, the whole array of fantastic representations of human, animal and human-animal figures came to life, though unusually foreshortened, with anatomically correct joints. In the normal, healthy state, this layer of the unconscious was suppressed, disguised. Her strong will, determination, and ability to concentrate made it possible for her to use her only chance: to speak the language of graphics. This was her silent way of showing how she was becoming intuitively aware of herself and her body space. A certain non-verbal autocommunication was going on. She used drawing to express emotions, to react emotionally to her helpless state in a world that was still alien to her. This is how she talked to herself. As time passed, her creative mythological thinking served to activate the verbal functions of the left hemisphere.

Along with the recovery of speech, non-verbal communication is replaced by thoughts expressed for others. Simultaneously, fantastic representations and mythological images associated with right hemispher activity are displaced. The right hemisphere regulates filtering images and establishing rational control over emotions.However, the mythological thinking of artistically gifted people is not likely to be totally suppressed. Mythological thinking and logical thinking are inevitably involved in the creative process.


A vivid example of research (by scientists, not mythologists) that demonstrates not only how "mythological thinking" lies beneath rational, logical consciousness in humans today, but also duplicates the phylogenetic development of our species and the trajectory of Jaynes' theory.

Just had to share ....

Namaste, bodhibliss

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

bodhibliss wrote:A vivid example of research (by scientists, not mythologists) that demonstrates not only how "mythological thinking" lies beneath rational, logical consciousness in humans today, but also duplicates the phylogenetic development of our species and the trajectory of Jaynes' theory.
Interesting indeed and very cool. 8)

(I admit, though, that when I read the word "trepanation," my first reaction was, Yikes! My guess is that this was the only procedure available to help reduce swelling and pressure in the girl's brain...I hope.)


***


Your example, bodhibliss, made me think of this image, not in terms of addressing the exact issues that you raised in the previous post, but in reference to the notions raised in this thread related to developmental processes, the emergence of mythological ideation, and the inherited archetypal roots of the psyche that can be observed early in life:

Image

I apologize for not being able to provide the source for this painting; it's one that I've had saved for a long time, and it came from analytical psychology text of some sort. What the viewer needs to know, though, is that a three year old girl was presented with an array of fingerpaint colors and instructed to create anything that she liked. And I'm about to state the obvious for most here: the circle and the cross are "pure" archetypal images*, and the mandala, of course, is a spontaneous creation of the unconscious. This sort of mandala can be found in mythological-religious-spiritual traditions throughout history and across the globe, and this goes without saying, but no way, of course, was this young child privy to knowledge of such things. All I can recall of the girl's own interpretation of this painting is that it was "a picture of her." (A Jungian interpretation also includes the mandala as an expression of Self or of the God-image, while the colors reflect the young girl's developing consciousness in terms of thinking (red) and feeling (blue) which are rational functions in Jungian typology.)

*The five basic archetypal shapes include circle, cross, square, triangle, and spiral.


Cindy


P.S. And, bodhibliss, I'm about to do some snooping, and I hope that you won't mind. But what part of the world are you in right now? I ask since you mentioned posting earlier today when it was 2:00 a.m. your time. And thanks. :)
Last edited by Cindy B. on Sat Apr 17, 2010 7:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss »

Archetypal patterns ... go figure!

(punintended)
Cindy B. wrote: P.S. And, bodhibliss, I'm about to do some snooping, and I hope that you won't mind. But what part of the world are you in right now? I ask since you mentioned posting earlier today when it was 2:00 a.m. your time. And thanks. :)
Last time I checked, California would be the place. After a couple months in Taos, New Mexico, where I have been contemplating relocating, I'm back in Modesto (that place on Larry King Live where bad things happen - Scott Peterson offing his pregnant wife Lacey, missing intern having an affair with a congressman, etc. - though we haven't been in the news for a couple years now ...)

The 2 a.m. post wasn't the last one I posted in the Egyptian thread, but the one before that.

I don't contribute as much to CoHO as I used to (and hardly at all to the Joseph Campbell Mythology Group on Yahoo, where I serve as one of the moderators and co-owners); like Noman, I do plenty of pondering in writing on line, but that does tend to interfere with the day job .... so when I have a chance, I tend to overindulge. Alas, don't have the time nor the opportunity to participate in as many conversations as I want ... but Jaynes has been close to the surface recently, as I was interviewed for a radio program on CBS affiliates recently in Seattle and Detroit and, I think, San Diego, on the subject of paleolithic goddess figurines.

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Thanks, bodhibliss, for the info. :) And it so happens that I don't know what CoHO stands for nor PoMO (?) that I've seen elsewhere on the board...

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss »

CoHO is where we're holding this exchange - Conversations of a Higher Order (some prefer CoaHO.

And PoM should be The Power of Myth, either the video or book version of Bill Moyers six hours of interviews with Joseph Campbell

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

CoHO is where we're holding this exchange - Conversations of a Higher Order
Yet another "duh" moment for me today... :roll:

And thanks again, bodhibliss.

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

‘this ‘internal monologue’ is the voice of God or the Dao’

- NoMan

* * * * * * *

‘this ‘internal monologue’ is the voice of God or the Dao’. It is the precise opposite, which Xianglong points out, that the internal monologue – since it is manifested in words – is already subjectively influenced, therefore it is not equal to what IS revealed by the Dao. However, Xianglong explicitly argues that the causal link between the Dao and the formation of the words in our internal monologue can NOT be denied.

- Evinnra
I hear you Evinnra. I hear you. There is a difference between the ‘internal monologue being the ‘voice of the Dao’ and the ‘internal monologue’ being an interpretation of the Dao made by our subjective consciousness.

I understand that. And I hear you. And yet – I don’t actually hear your voice. I read the words you posted and imagine a mature female voice. Unfortunately, I have never actually heard your voice. If ever I had, I would probably conjure up a voice that has more of an Aussie accent with a Hungarian twist. Instead I have to settle for a rather boring generic American version of English. But I wonder if you know the distinctions of ‘hearing’ that I am making?

(1) A voice actually heard – sound waves entering the ear of the hearer.

(2) A hallucination. A hypnogogic voice we all hear at times. Or the voices that the schizophrenic hears when he or she is having an episode. Or perhaps the voices heard by a person who has ingested a hallucinogen.

(3) The creation of an internal monologue, such as my imagining your voice as I read the words you posted. A figment of the imagination.


The difference between numbers (2) and (3) is sometimes problematic. I once heard a call-in show on public radio about schizophrenia. They played a recording of what it would sound like to be a schizophrenic and hear voices. There was a lot of overlapping malicious voices conveying the experience of the sounds heard by a paranoid schizophrenic. Of course the feeling of the psychotic episode can’t be as easily conveyed. But the actual sounds that the schizophrenic hears can be.

People would call into this show and say that we all hear voices. Sometimes they are very vivid products of the imagination and memory. There is a certain amount of jollity about just how much of a voice is actually heard – as if to suggest that the more vivid the imagination the crazier one is. As a general rule people don’t like to think they are crazy. And they don’t like to actually hear voices as in level (2) hallucination. Do you follow?

The internal monologue, the stream of consciousness, was, in my usage, level (3) on my list. I appreciate the relationship of this voice to the Dao or God as you explain. The internal monologue is more like a reflection of the moon than the moon, or the shadows on Plato’s cave walls, and not the true voice of God.

In Greek mythology Semele, a mortal woman asked Zeus to show himself in his true form. He warned her that she’s not ready for it. But she insisted because she was love-struck and because Hera had made her jealeous. So Zeus finally relented and SHABANG! – that was the end of Semele.

In Indian mythology Arjuna lost courage just before a great battle. War and killing is wrong Arjuna thought. It’s better not to take part in this at all. Krishna decided to give Arjuna a God-eye view of all the soldiers on both sides of the battle lines. What Arjuna saw was the monstrous sight of everlasting mass suffering and death. One glimpse of a divine vision was all it took. Arjuna’s submitted to his darma and fought the battle.

Our interpretation of the divine is not the same as the divine. The internal monologue is a mortal interpretation. I was using a metaphor.

But that - has nothing to do with my complaint about Jaynes’s theory. Your take on Jaynes’s Bicameral mind theory shows just how sleazy and slippery Jaynes’s theory is. Jaynesians can make it work, by snowing over the fact that Jaynes said Bicameral people were pushed around like robots, or that the voices they heard were not figments of their imagination.

I recommend Jaynes’s book. It’s very entertaining and intellectually inspiring. It does what all great non-fiction does - it makes you think. But as a legitimate scientific theory it just doesn’t make the cut. As one reviewer put it at Amazon it wins the Von Daniken award.

* * * * * * *
And a tidbit—command hallucinations are common among some people with schizophrenia or other so-called psychotic disorders in that they feel compelled to obey the directives imparted by a hallucinated voice. This is one example of what Jaynes called "a vestige of the bicameral mind."

- Cindy B.
Jaynes contends that this ancient command hallucination made it possible to for great masses of people to live in peace and harmony where there was “no private anything”. But this goes against everything I’ve learned about schizophrenia and it’s relation to shamanism, as related by Campbell and others including the marvelous explanation by Sapolsky I posted above.

Schizophrenia is a severe form of what they call schizotypal. In the right context the schizotypal will be a powerful mythmaking shaman.

Now the idea that everyone in the civilization cultures of the Near East from the years 9000 BCE to 5000 BCE experienced command hallucinations that kept them docile robotic servants without private interests is the exact opposite of this schizo-shaman theory. The shaman, Campbell explains, stands in opposition to the culture. The concerns of the shaman are not the concerns of the community at large. He or she has her own peculiar battles to fight. He or she is the social deviant that shows up in all cultures – sometimes depressed, sometimes compulsive, sometimes hearing the voices of the divine. Whether this person has a beneficial effect on her tribe is a matter of chance and circumstance. But there is one thing you can bet your bookstore on: the shaman will never be ‘normal’ and conform easily to a social system. The shaman is characteristically a social deviant, allergic to society you might say. And contrary to what Jaynsians and other utopian theorist might believe, it doesn’t matter what social system we are talking about. We were never all cooperative shamans. There is no such thing. There never was a ‘golden age’ of society.

In 1520 Tenochtitlan was larger in population than any city in Europe at the time. The Aztecs had a very cooperative, well organized, tightly knit society. However, they also had a method of social control that was as horrifying as any of our futuristic dystopian fantasies. No command hallucinations necessary.

* * * * * * *

Bodhi,

Well stated explanation on what is meant by ‘mythological thinking’ or ‘mythological consciousness’ if you prefer. I don’t know if ‘maverick is a necessary description for a person who is dissatisfied with the English language. Not that I care about the label. But there is an important issue that I’m trying to address.

Campbell would say that dreams come in two forms, those that deal with ordinary personal concerns, and those that occasionally tap into ‘elementary ideas’ or ‘universal archetypes’. But should both types of dreams be considered ‘mythological consciousness’?

It just seems to me we should make a distinction.

Before I even read your response and Cindy's post with the artwork I had thought of another great example of what I was trying to say in my last post. I had just received a drawing in an email by a 2.5 year old child. Very abstract. Lot’s of color. We are all familiar with two to four year old child drawings. They become more representational in those years of rapid neuronal growth and transformation of consciousness. I enjoy looking at these drawings, and asking what it says about the developing psyche. Occasionally, you might find something that brilliantly expresses a universal motif, a sure sign of archetypal thinking, such as the picture presented by Cindy.

However – however – however - are we going to say that Kandinsky, and Klee, and Miro, and Pollack, were engaged in nothing more than the thought processes of a two to four year old when they painted their beautiful canvasses?

Image
Captive, Paul Klee, 1940

I - think - not.

But to some people, there is no distinction made. ‘My five-year-old could do that’ they might say as they view a masterpiece of a modern art museum. But there is a big difference, in terms of what the artist is engaged in and attempting. That three year old that made the picture Cindy posted may develop into a master of mythological consciousness. She's definitely showing signs of having the magic.


Campbell once said that there is nothing wrong with psychological doodling but one should know the difference between it and true art. Since the 60s there has been a general attitude that everyone is a shaman, everyone is a poet, everyone is an artist, so it’s all the same. But I am old school. I believe a gifted few have the magic touch. And the magic touch consists of being fully aware of the human condition, the truth as revealed by mythos, AND the truth as revealed by logos. Hence the word mythological - containing both Greek roots. I don’t believe the creative artist is operating 100% mythos in their creative effort or that a commoner, an accountant let’s say, operates in their work 100% logos. Myth, Campbell says, is the song we dance to, even when we can’t name the tune.

The case of the schizophrenic is interesting because I agree exactly with what you say here.
Schizophrenia is not a rejection of one's rational ego-consciousness (that phrasing really makes no sense, for it implies the ego has made the choice to reject itself); rather, consciousness is swamped, invaded by archetypal (i.e. mythological) energies and images.

- Bodhi
One way to look at it is that a person is swamped by mythos. Another way is that a person ‘lets go’ of their logos. I think of the 60s TV series The Prisoner. The question they kept asking him is “Why did you resign?. Why did you give up your logos that makes rational sense of the world? Why do you choose to live in this fantasy world where you think you are an international super spy hero. The prisoner kept asking the director of the village in which he is held who is in charge? Who is number one? And the answer was always the same “You are – number Six”. You are in the center Dr. Perry told one patient, bringing him out of his psychosis and back to full integration.

Without regards to free will, when Campbell famously said that the yogi swims in the waters in which the psychotic is drowning he missed a key point, I think, or else never bothered to state it. The reason the yogi can do this is that he hasn’t completely ‘let go’ of his logos, he still has one hand firmly on the rudder and another controlling the sail so to speak. The poor schizo, unfortunately doesn’t have his hand on anything, is tossed around helplessly by stormy seas. Yes, they visit the same places as Campbell says, perhaps see the same sights, but there is this fundamental difference in the way it is experienced. And I just think there should be a distinction in our language between the psychotic crisis and the mature mythological journey of a yogi; between the dream world of the two year old finger painter, and the mythic insights of the fully enlightened visual artist.

When we start talking about paleolithic art, which is what started this digression, the problem of which I speak becomes even more apparent. Some people look at any and all primary culture or paleolithic art and think it necessarily contains a transcendent spiritual message. I love looking at this artwork the same as I like looking at drawings of tots. But much of the artwork we find could be, and probably is, just the doodling of children or grown-up adults acting like children - not the clarvoyant renderings of a powerful shaman in full career, tapping into the universal truths and conveying such truths in the form of universal symbolism. True mythological thinking is a rare and precious thing. Not the norm of early cultures or of modern children.


The line might not always be easy to draw, but it should be drawn never the less.


- NoMan

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

As usual, the train of thought I am following with my complaint of the meaning of ‘mythological consciousness’ has already been taken by someone. I remember Bodhi and Ritske talking about it a long time ago in this forum. It is stated clearly and concisely by Ken Wilber as the Pre-Trans Fallacy and it is simple as can be.

http://www.praetrans.com/en/ptf.html

Here is a part I like:
For most of the recent modern era, and certainly since Freud (and Marx and Ludwig Feuerbach), the reductionist stance toward spirituality has prevailed – all spiritual experiences, no matter how highly developed they might in fact be, were simply interpreted as regressions to primitive and infantile modes of thought.

However, as if in overreaction to all that, we are now, and have been since the sixties, in the throes of various forms of elevationism (exemplified by, but by no means confined to, the New Age movement). All sorts of endeavors, of no matter what origin or of what authenticity, are simply elevated to transrational and spiritual glory, and the only qualification for this wonderful promotion is that the endeavor be nonrational. Anything rational is wrong; anything nonrational is spiritual.

Spirit is indeed nonrational; but it is trans, not pre. It transcends but includes reason; it does not regress and exclude it. Reason, like any particular stage of evolution, has its own (and often devastating) limitations, repressions, and distortions. But as we have seen, the inherent problems of one level are solved (or "defused") only at the next level of development; they are not solved by regressing to a previous level where the problem can be merely ignored. And so it is with the wonders and the terrors of reason: it brings enormous new capacities and new solutions, while introducing its own specific problems, problems solved only by a transcendence to the higher and transrational realms.


http://www.praetrans.com/en/ptf.html


Wilber’s is a very simple and brilliant idea, and one I needed to untangle my own pre/trans confusion.

- NoMan
Last edited by noman on Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

noman wrote:As usual, the train of thought I am following with my complaint of the meaning of ‘mythological consciousness’ has already been taken by someone. I remember Bodhi and Ritske talking about is a long time ago in this forum. It is stated clearly and concisely by Ken Wilber as the Pre-Trans Fallacy and it is simple as can be.

http://www.praetrans.com/en/ptf.html

Here is a part I like:
For most of the recent modern era, and certainly since Freud (and Marx and Ludwig Feuerbach), the reductionist stance toward spirituality has prevailed – all spiritual experiences, no matter how highly developed they might in fact be, were simply interpreted as regressions to primitive and infantile modes of thought.

However, as if in overreaction to all that, we are now, and have been since the sixties, in the throes of various forms of elevationism (exemplified by, but by no means confined to, the New Age movement). All sorts of endeavors, of no matter what origin or of what authenticity, are simply elevated to transrational and spiritual glory, and the only qualification for this wonderful promotion is that the endeavor be nonrational. Anything rational is wrong; anything nonrational is spiritual.

Spirit is indeed nonrational; but it is trans, not pre. It transcends but includes reason; it does not regress and exclude it. Reason, like any particular stage of evolution, has its own (and often devastating) limitations, repressions, and distortions. But as we have seen, the inherent problems of one level are solved (or "defused") only at the next level of development; they are not solved by regressing to a previous level where the problem can be merely ignored. And so it is with the wonders and the terrors of reason: it brings enormous new capacities and new solutions, while introducing its own specific problems, problems solved only by a transcendence to the higher and transrational realms.


http://www.praetrans.com/en/ptf.html



Wilber’s is a very simple and brilliant idea, and one I needed to untangle my own pre/trans confusion.

- NoMan


Agree with this quote from Ken Wilber. What is it exactly that distinguishes non rational from irrational thinking? Would the intentionality of thinking make a difference in the definitions of these, or would the subject's ability to verify the content makes a difference?

p.s. I imagine you sounding like Jerry Springer. Am I close? :lol:
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Locked