Bicameral Mind Theory - Attempt B.

[Obbe]

That reasoning is also made-up.

[PastorSehmish]

That reasoning is also made-up.

Perhaps you misunderstand what reasoning is. One does not 'make up' reasoning, reasoning merely is. A reason can be made up though, and to reason is something different again. Of course, your misunderstanding of this is to be expected. I'm glad I could enlighten you.

God Bless,
Doctor Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

[Obbe]

Originally Posted by PastorSehmish

Perhaps you misunderstand what reasoning is.

We understand reality and God differently.

You will not understand why reasons are made-up, why logic and order are created out of the illogical and the chaotic and the finite out of the infinite, why God wants nothing or I have a problem with you and your intentions.

I will not understand why you believe world domination is a good thing, why you believe in organized religion, or why someone caught up with dominating the world with their organized religion would waste time with meaningless arguments here on totse.

That said: "Right and wrong" are creations as are reasons. I find this theory to be interesting and significant. You can go enjoy your shit elsewhere.

[PastorSehmish]

That said: "Right and wrong" are creations as are reasons.

Agreed.

I will not understand why you believe world domination is a good thing, why you believe in organized religion, or why someone caught up with dominating the world with their organized religion would waste time with meaningless arguments here on totse.

Indeed, perhaps it just isn't for all to understand.

You will not understand why reasons are made-up, why logic and order are created out of the illogical and the chaotic and the finite out of the infinite, why God wants nothing or I have a problem with you and your intentions.

I don't understand my brother. I thought we had worked through our issues. I thought you were on my side now.

God Bless,
Dr Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

[Obbe]

Originally Posted by PastorSehmish

I thought you were on my side now.

There are no real sides.

[Obbe]

There are several words in ancient Greek literature which, over time, have come to indicate aspects of conscious functioning. But the further back we search, the more concrete and bodily meanings these words have.

Such words are: thumos, phrenes, noos, and psyche all of them variously (mis)translated in modern times into as mind, spirit, or soul, and kradie, ker, and etor are often translated as heart or sometimes as mind or spirit. The translation of any of these seven as mind or anything similar is entirely mistaken and without warrant whaetver in the Iliad.

Earlier in the book julian finds that the physiological cuing of an hallucinated voice, whether in bicameral mind or in a contemporary schizophrenic, is the stress of some decision or conflict. Now, as the voices of gods become more inadequate and suppressed during the social chaos of the breakdown period, we may suppose that the amount of stress required to occasion an hallucinated voice would be raised.

Such increased stress would be accompanied by a variety of physiological concomitants, vascular changes resulting in burning sensations, abrupt changes in breathing, a pounding or fluttering heart, etc. responses which in the Iliad are called thumos, phrenes and kradie respectively. This is what these words mean, not mind or anything like it. And as the gods are heard less and less, these internal response-stimuli or progressively greater stress are associated more and more with men's subsequent actions, whatever they may be, even coming to take on the godlike function of seeming to initiate action themselves.

At the very beginning of the Iliad, Agamemnon, king of men but slave of gods, is told by his voices to take the fair-cheeked Briseis away from Achilles, who had captured her. As he does so, the responce of Achilles begins in his etor, or what is suggested a cramp in his guts, where he is in conflict of put into two parts (mermerizo) whether to obey his thumos, the immediate sensations of anger, and kill the pre-emptory king or not. It is only after this vacillating interval of belly sensations and surges of blood, as Achilles is drawing his mighty sword, that the stress has become sufficient to hallucinate the dreadfully gleaming goddess Athene who then takes over control of the action and tells Achilles what to do.

We may call these mind-words that later come to mean something like conscious functioning, the preconcious hypostases. In any novel situation, when there are no gods, it is not man who acts, but one of the preconcious hypostases which causes him to act. They are thus the seats of reaction and responsibility which occur in the transition from the bicameral mind to subjective consciousness.

It is suggested the temporal development of the preconcious hypostases can be roughly divided into four parts:

Phase I: Objective: Occurred in the bicameral age when these terms referred to simple external observations.

Phase II: Internal: Occurred when these terms have come to mean things inside the body, particularly certain internal sensations.

Phase III: Subjective: When these terms refer to processes that we would call mental; the have moved from internal stimuli supposedly causing actions to internal spaces where metaphored actions may occur.

Phase IV: Synthetic: When the various hypostases unite into one conscious self capable of introspection.

More on this theory later...

[Obbe]

Recently got started on chapter six, The Moral Consciousness of the Khabiru (known in later times as Hebrew). I find this chapter particularly interesting in it's focus on the Old Testament.

The main point of the chapter is of course to examine the bicameral nature of the people who lived during various millenniums BC, and the development of consciousness as the old bicameral hierarchies collapsed due to complexity.

However, there were a few points mentioned which I would like to highlight here, as I find them to coincide with certain implications of the videos posted in this thread. Those points are:

The Elohim. Usually incorrectly translated in the singular as God. 'Elohim' is a plural form; it can be used collectively taking a singular verb, or as a regular plural taking a plural verb. It comes from the root of 'to be powerful', and better translations of 'elohim' might be the great ones, the prominent ones, the majesties, the judges, the mighty ones, etc. From the point of view of the present theory, it is clear that elohim is a general term referring to the voice-visions of the bicameral mind.

At the particular time in history that we pick up the story as the Pentateuch has put it together, there are only a few remaining elohim in contrast to the large number that probably previously existed (think ancient Greeks). The most important is the one recognized as Yahweh, which can be translated as He-who-is. Evidently one particular group of the Khabiru, as the prophetic subjective age was approaching, was following only the voice of He-who-is. Other elohim are occasionally mentioned throughout the older parts of the Old Testament, the most important of which is Ba'al, usually translated as the Owner.

Paradise Lost. A further observation could be made upon the story of the Fall and how it is possible to look upon it as a myth of the breakdown of the bicameral mind. The Hebrew arum, meaning crafty or deceitful, surely a conscious subjective word, is only used three or four times throughout the entire Old Testament. It is here used to describe the source of temptation. The ability to deceive, we remember, is one of the hallmarks of consciousness. The serpent promises that "you shall be like the elohim themselves, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5), qualities that only subjective conscious man is capable of. And when these first humans had eaten from the tree of knowledge*, suddenly "the eyes of them both were opened," their analog eyes in their metaphored mind-space, "and they knew that they were naked" (Genesis 3:7), or had autoscopic visions and were narratizing, seeing themselves as others see them. And so is their sorrow "greatly multiplied" (Genesis 3:16) and they are cast from the Garden where He-who-is could be seen and talked with like another man.

*It may be important to note here what was meant by "the tree of knowledge", a topic discussed in the Pharmacratic Inquisition and other videos on the subject, available in this thread. Here is a short commercial-like video on the very same topic.

Also: That idols were common in the period is shown by the casual reference to what must have been a life-sized "image" that, with the help of some goat hair, is made to resemble David in bed (I Samuel 19:13). The casual presence of such an idol in David's house may point to some common hallucinogenic practice of the time that has been suppressed from the text.

Interesting implications, very interesting.

[BrokeProphet]

Originally Posted by PastorSehmish

God created humans fully physically, intellectually and spiritually developed.

Proof?

--------

You must have knowledge or proof of this if you are going to assert that the bicameral mind theory is wrong.

Since you have KNOWLEDGE of what God did or did not do, I ask you, why does the bible bother preaching about faith? You obviously have none, so do you just skip over the multitude of places that speak of faith?

[BrokeProphet]

Originally Posted by Obbe

The last time I made this thread, it was destroyed by trolling unrelated to the thread and eventually locked by a mod.

I hate it when people troll my threads to death will bullshit and nonsense......

[Obbe]

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet

I hate it when people troll my threads to death will bullshit and nonsense......

I hate how the majority of your posts and threads don't bring anything positive to the forum at all. Just help you to indulge in hedonism, to wallow in whatever pleasure you get out of declaring you are "correct" to the rest of the posters, which is meaningless in more ways then one.

Do you have anything at all to contribute to the bicameral mind theory, or any correlations it may have with the consumption of hallucinogenic plants throughout ancient and not-so-ancient cultures?

Or are you just here to masturbate?