From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Thu Nov 13 2003 - 10:07:10 GMT
Hi Platt, Bo
Paul:
> On a side note, Julian Jaynes has speculated that written language in
> particular was a major influence on the development of human
> consciousness as it is experienced today. I plan to explore this (in
> relation to the MOQ) on the forum when I have a little more time, if
you
> are interested?
Platt:
I'm very interested in your views on the Jaynes theory of
consciousness. I've just read Jaynes' paper on the subject, thanks to
Bo's reference. Frankly, I found Jaynes' theory less than
convincing...since it is based on flimsy evidence, like the absence of
"I" in
the narrative Iliad. (I just finished a novel by modern author Sydney
Sheldon that contained not a single "I.") As for voices of gods, I
subscribe to the much simpler (and IMO more plausible) explanation that
Gods were invented to explain causes which were otherwise inexplicable
to primitive man, like kids attributing thunder and lightning to Gods
having a bowling game in the sky. Man, including primitive man, cannot
survive when plagued by doubts. As a matter of necessity, Gods were
invented, necessity being the mother of invention. Finally, to describe
primitive man as suffering from auditory hallucinations like modern
schizophrenics disturbs my sense of identity with patterns common to
all human beings, reminding me of the stance taken by some who
stereotype blacks as intellectually challenged. Again, the evidence
Jaynes presents is skimpy IMO.
Paul:
There is much more to Jaynes' thesis than is contained in that paper,
some of which may give you cause to reassess your (commonly accepted)
explanation of gods. However, I'm not really trying to convince you to
believe Julian Jaynes, I just found that his theory opened a new door
onto some dusty old assumptions and seems generally in agreement with
the MOQ. Bo has already pointed out some similarities between the
historical interpretations proposed by Jaynes and Pirsig so I won't go
further into it just yet.
Platt:
..but would look
forward to your analysis of language and the bicameral mind vis a vis
the MOQ.
Paul:
In terms of MOQ levels it is my current belief that, historically,
language began as a social pattern of communication and instruction
which later evolved to provide a method for latching thoughts *as
patterns of thoughts*, not as patterns of the socially learned behaviour
that may arguably be accompanied by thought. This latching of
intellectual patterns is possibly linked with the advent of writing
which provided a means of preserving patterns of knowledge previously
preserved by ritual and custom. Pirsig notes in Lila that:
"Cavemen are usually depicted as hairy, stupid creatures who don't do
much, but anthropological studies of contemporary primitive tribes
suggest that stone age people were probably bound by ritual all day
long. There's a ritual for washing, for putting up a house, for hunting,
for eating and so on - so much so that the division between 'ritual' and
'knowledge' becomes indistinct. In cultures without books ritual seems
to be a public library for teaching the young and preserving common
values and information." [LILA, p.442/443]
And in Lila's Child he suggests that:
"...books such as the Bible and Koran and Gita have been held to be far
more important than any individual life. They have preserved the
intellectual patterns that have saved whole cultures from degeneration
into savagery. Similarly, it was the rediscovery of lost Greek patterns
of intellect that is usually credited for the Renaissance." [Lila's
Child p.313]
Once intellectual patterns latch in their own right beyond the
biological lifespan and experience of an individual and beyond the
purposes of associated rituals and customs of societies they can grow,
evolve and die with a higher degree of versatility and freedom and
according to intellectual rules.
"Intellectuality occurs when these customs as well as biological and
inorganic patterns are designated with a sign that stands for them and
these signs are manipulated independently of the patterns they stand
for. "Intellect" can then be defined very loosely as the level of
independently manipulable signs. Grammar, logic and mathematics can be
described as the rules of this sign manipulation." [Letter from Pirsig
to Paul]
Paul
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 13 2003 - 10:11:12 GMT