Re: Jaynes P.S.

[Guest guest]

What about the main thesis?

[Guest guest]

> I wonder what Nietzsche would have thought of Jaynes' philology.

>

> The whole thing reminds me von Daniken. Remember that stuff?

>

> Regards,

>

> Dan

300504

Dear Dan

I normally dont post on this list, I have not the time, what with

Jung-l being what it is, but I cannot resist for once....

This is just also to indicate that I shall be putting on Jung-l some

thoughts on the Iliad and the Odyssey - and on June 16th 1904

Bloomsday - shortly.... I shall revert to silence here.

love

Heward

From 'Ecce Homo'. Why I write such good books, on 'Zarathustra':

" Has anyone at the end of the nineteenth century a clear idea of what

poets of strong ages have called inspiration? If not, I will describe

it.-- If one had the slightest residue of supersition left in ones

system, one could hardly reject altogether the idea that one is

merely incarnation, merely mouthpiece, merely a medium of

overpowering forces. The concept of revelation - in the sense that

suddenly, with indescribable certainty and subtlety, something

becomes visible, audible, something that shakes one to the last

depths and throws one down - that merely describes the facts. One

hears, one does not seek; one accepts, one does not ask who gives;

like lightning a thought flashes up, with necessity, without

hesitation regarding its form - I never had any choice. "

I cant see that Nietzsche would have had much more problem with the

philology of bicamerality than he does with that of good and bad/good

and evil in 'Genealogy of Morals' (where, incidentally, he puts

essentially Jaynes's thesis on 'Ancestors into gods' in Section 19 of

the Second Essay!).

Hey ho!

[Guest guest]

(Re Aristotle: The Athenaion Politeia was wrongly attributed to

Aristotle. Probably one of his students. An important source for

the development of the radical Athenian democracy. Cohen, Reeve,

and Curd assert that roughly 4/5's of Aristotle's writings were

never intended for publication. They were notes. Likely what

Jaynes was talking about... don't know, don't have the book here. )

As we just saw with Jung -- and see all over the internet-- a murky

business to take a few sentences, out of context, and catch the

meaning. The medieval, for instance. more about that later... But

it's the thesis, the thesis, the thesis...

[Guest guest]

Dear Heward,

Heward Wilkinson wrote:

>

>I cant see that Nietzsche would have had much more problem with the

>philology of bicamerality

>

I had in mind Jaynes' remarks on Aristotle. Where's he coming from with

that?

It seems to me that Jaynes goes further than Nietzsche ever does,

insofar as he (Jaynes) compares the ancients to schizophrenics - madmen.

Although, regarding contemporary schizophrenics, it also appears that

Jaynes may hold a " myth of mental illness " kind of pov:

" It is of course in the distress of schizophrenia that auditory

hallucinations similar to bicameral voices are most common and best

studied. This is now a difficult matter. At a suspicion of

hallucinations, distressed psychotics are given some kind of

chemotherapy such as Thorazine, which specifically eliminates

hallucinations. The procedure is at least questionable, and may not be

done for the patient, but for the hospital which wishes to eliminate

this rival control of the patient. But it has never been shown that

hallucinating patients are more intractable than others. Indeed, as

judged by other patients, hallucinating schizophrenics are more

friendly, less defensive, more likable, and have more positive

expectancies towards others than non-hallucinating patients. And it is

possible that even when the effect is apparently negative, hallucinated

voices may be helpful to the healing process " (pp. 87-88).

Mother of Mithra. So, Professor Jaynes, doctors give patients drugs not

to help them, but to make them more tractable, and out of rivalry for

control with their symptoms. Also, the inmates should be in control of

the asylum. God, I hate the 70's. I hate the 60's, too, but I really,

really hate the 70's.

> than he does with that of good and bad/good

>and evil in 'Genealogy of Morals' (where, incidentally, he puts

>essentially Jaynes's thesis on 'Ancestors into gods' in Section 19 of

>the Second Essay!).

>

I wll look at it again - thanks for the tip.

Regards,

Dan

>

>Hey ho!

>

>

>

>

> " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may

be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

>

>H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Ms. Grundy,

Ms. Grundy wrote:

>>>What about the main thesis?

>

Jaynes' main thesis appears to be that ancient men were essentially

schizophrenic. I don't believe this is true, because schizophrenics, I

know from experience, are generally dysfunctional - ancient man could

not have survived if dysfunctional. Further, the thesis irks me because

I think I smell upon it a whiff of the once-fashionable trend to

romanticize serious mental illness - " it's just an alternate way of

being! we shouldn't judge! "

I don't understand why, when Jaynes says such things about primitives,

people rally to his defense, but when Jung says much less drastic things

about the weak egos of primitives, people get mad at him. Is it because

Jaynes talks about ancient primitives, and Jung about contemporary? Btw,

I don't mean to imply that I think Homer was a primitive, as I certainly

do not think so.

>>(re the philology: You read Greek?)

I read some, but am not at all expert. I've been working on it, though. There's

more to philology than reading Greek, in any event. Lots of people who read

Greek aren't philologists. My question was, on what basis does Jaynes claim that

the works attributed to Aristotle were obviously written by more than one

person? He makes this extraordinary claim, and does nothing to back it up. Is

this sort of thing, I wonder, typical of him?

>>(Re Aristotle: The Athenaion Politeia was wrongly attributed to

>>Aristotle. Probably one of his students.

How do you know? What is the source for this assertion? I don't think I'v ever

seen (for example) a Straussian political scholar make such a claim.

>> An important source for

>>the development of the radical Athenian democracy. Cohen, Reeve,

>>and Curd

Who are they?

>>assert that roughly 4/5's of Aristotle's writings were

>>never intended for publication.

No books were intended for publication in the sense in which we mean that today.

The printing press catastrophe (from the Greek for " turning over " :-)and

resulting industry had not yet occurred. If you wanted a book, you (or maybe

your literate slave) had to copy it out. People passed books around - and maybe

were a little bit careful about to whom.

>> They were notes. Likely what

>>Jaynes was talking about... don't know, don't have the book here. )

Jaynes explains his preference for the term " Aristotelian writings " to

" Aristotle's writings " as follows:

" It is so obvious that the writings ascribed to Aristotle were not written by

the same hand that I prefer this designation " (p. 45, note).

That's it. No explanation.

Regards,

Dan

>

>

[Guest guest]

300504

Dear Dan

I am not enough of an Aristotle expert to comment on that area, and I

certainly dont think Jaynes' scholarship is free of speculative

elements. I think its a HYPOTHESIS to be both refined and tested

against instances J hasnt indicated - and possible counter-

instances. I cant get into it here, as I explained, but would on

Jung-l if it arises in natural discourse there.

In 1999 I published a paper on him which is VERY compressed.

Especially the last part with its theory of fundamental psychic

change process. But for what its worth I'll put it in the files

here; it might suggest avenues of enquiry to one person or another.

I am really surprised you dont like him - he seems to me such an

amazingly witty and irreverent writer, a genuine pioneering loner and

not a consensus thinker at all. He also seems to me deeply

complementary to both Jung and psychoanalysis, and to be in the same

ball-park.

Just as a final question mark to you - if there isnt SOMETHING in his

theory, what then do you make of Socrates' bicameral voice?

(Especially taken in relation to Nietzsche's theory of the rise of

Socratism in 'The Birth of Tragedy'.)

MOI would regard it as both a vindication of Jaynes - and an

indication that his theory is FAR too dichotomised. Ie we can be

both bicameral AND conscious - and that alters things.

love

Heward

>

> >

> >I cant see that Nietzsche would have had much more problem with

the

> >philology of bicamerality

> >

>

> I had in mind Jaynes' remarks on Aristotle. Where's he coming from

with

> that?

>

> It seems to me that Jaynes goes further than Nietzsche ever does,

> insofar as he (Jaynes) compares the ancients to schizophrenics -

madmen.

> Although, regarding contemporary schizophrenics, it also appears

that

> Jaynes may hold a " myth of mental illness " kind of pov:

>

> " It is of course in the distress of schizophrenia that auditory

> hallucinations similar to bicameral voices are most common and best

> studied. This is now a difficult matter. At a suspicion of

> hallucinations, distressed psychotics are given some kind of

> chemotherapy such as Thorazine, which specifically eliminates

> hallucinations. The procedure is at least questionable, and may not

be

> done for the patient, but for the hospital which wishes to

eliminate

> this rival control of the patient. But it has never been shown that

> hallucinating patients are more intractable than others. Indeed, as

> judged by other patients, hallucinating schizophrenics are more

> friendly, less defensive, more likable, and have more positive

> expectancies towards others than non-hallucinating patients. And it

is

> possible that even when the effect is apparently negative,

hallucinated

> voices may be helpful to the healing process " (pp. 87-88).

>

> Mother of Mithra. So, Professor Jaynes, doctors give patients drugs

not

> to help them, but to make them more tractable, and out of rivalry

for

> control with their symptoms. Also, the inmates should be in control

of

> the asylum. God, I hate the 70's. I hate the 60's, too, but I

really,

> really hate the 70's.

>

> > than he does with that of good and bad/good

> >and evil in 'Genealogy of Morals' (where, incidentally, he puts

> >essentially Jaynes's thesis on 'Ancestors into gods' in Section 19

of

> >the Second Essay!).

> >

>

> I wll look at it again - thanks for the tip.

>

> Regards,

>

> Dan

>

>

> >

> >Hey ho!

[Guest guest]

Still--have you actually read Jaynes? Not just parts and bits...

It's interesting, is all. And not as simple as you paint it.

Re Aristotle, I'm giving you the *current* scholarship. (And as it

wasn't Jayne's field, it's all he would give, too.)

Sources? Try Stockton's work, Classical Athenian Democracy re

authorship issuefor the Athenaion Politeia, which is discussed in

many other places... have a look if it interests you. I trust you

won't take my word for it.

Good translations, notes on status of Aristotelian manuscripts:

Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy by S. Marc Cohen (Editor),

Curd (Editor),

Reeve CDC (Editor)

Cohen

Ph.D., 1967, Cornell University

S. Marc Cohen received his bachelor's degree in philosophy from

Brandeis and his doctorate from Cornell. Prior to coming to the

University of Washington, he taught at Minnesota, Rutgers, Berkeley,

and Indiana. He teaches courses in the history of ancient Greek

philosophy, logic, and the philosophy of language. His publications

have mainly concerned the metaphysics and epistemology of Plato and

Aristotle. He is currently involved in several internet-related

projects, including the Archelogos Project (a hypertext analysis of

the works of Aristotle) and the entry on Aristotle's Metaphysics for

the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Strauss is pretty much ignored in current scholarly " conversations "

re Classical Athenian Democracy, though he is very important for

historiographical issues (but of course those don't necessarily have

anything to do with current consensus and treatment of evidence, but

indicate the shaping influence of political issues on treatment of

evidence).

Philology: Draw a Venn diagram. Hint: those who are philologists

of texts written in other languages than Greek don't have to read

Greek . . .

Extrapolate.

By my soul,

deb

[Guest guest]

Heward Wilkinson wrote:

>300504

>

>Dear Dan

> I cant get into it here, as I explained, but would on

>Jung-l if it arises in natural discourse there.

>

>

>

>Let's move it over there, then. I've been posting more than I'm supposed to

here anyway.

>

Regards,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Dear Ms. Grundy:

Ms. Grundy wrote:

>It's interesting, is all. And not as simple as you paint it.

>

>Re Aristotle, I'm giving you the *current* scholarship. (And as it

>wasn't Jayne's field, it's all he would give, too.)

>

Precisely. How, then, can he be so sure? It gives one pause.

>

>

>Strauss is pretty much ignored in current scholarly " conversations "

>re Classical Athenian Democracy,

>

But that's a problem, isn't it? Similar to Jung's being ignored in

scholarly conversations regarding things psychological. How can one

ignore the most important thinker in a given field and expect to get

anywhere?

Thanks for the other info. I'll check it out.

Regards,

Dan