Reference Message 126362
Hmmm...an unattributed quote presented in a manner to give the impression that it is a quote from Jaynes, until one gets to the very bottom and realizes that it is only someone trying to use Jaynes to support their own theories, and another bizarre attempt to portray the TMO as The National Socialist Party of 1930s Germany, even though the linked article doesn't talk about TM. (There are not enough reasonable grounds for criticism of the TMO that one doesn't have to resort to this sort of hyperbolic distortion?) There are many things one could critique about the POV presented in this article, including the underlying assumption that all ancient civilization were in essence fascist--itself a bizarre assumption. Question for Vaj--can you compare the Buddhist view of consciousness and evolution with Jaynes' "Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind"? Which do find more compelling, and why? What are the difference between the points of view? Which would be dualistic and which non-dual? Which more closely mirrors your own experiences? It been a couple decades and a half or thereabouts since I read Jaynes, but the comparison could be interesting. Thanks, HD --- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 20, 2006, at 9:27 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > What a screwed up movement we have. Love and LIght. Lou Valentino > > > Actually it bears considerable similarity to other cults. I > especially find interesting the raja/maharaja trip and the idea that > the God-King, "the leader of the cult is the only one who is supposed > to have will, desire, critical thought and so forth." In other words, > little or no spiritual anarchy is allowed. Interestingly the whole > treta yuga -> kali yuga transition fits quite well with Julian Jaynes > theory of on the breakdown of bicameralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/ > wiki/ > The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind). > Indeed the Vedas (and yagyas in particular), from this POV, represent > an attempt to reconnect to the gods whose "voices" could no longer be > heard. Jaynes actually places this breakdown of bicameralism in the > same era as the early Vedas. > > "While cult members are invariably convinced that they represent the > future of consciousness, it is much more likely that they represent > something akin to the regressive, degenerate phenomenon Erich Neumann > referred to as "recollectivisation". While they are clearly a > pathological version of whatever they represent, they appear to be at > least an attempt at a regressive return to an archaic psychosocial > organisation [ "Vedic civilization"]. This hypotheses receives > support from the fact noted above that fairly normal people are at > risk of zombification or mass-hysterical recollectivisation. The > parallels between Nazism, Cultural-Revolution-Maoism, and the typical > heavily-armed whacko cult should be evident. It is clear that > ordinary people, even highly-intelligent and well-educated people, > can become Nazis, Scientologists, Moonies etc. This indicates that > the cultic/mass-hysterical psychosocial organisation is essentially a > strong attractor, perhaps even stronger than 'normality', in the > phase-space or state-space representing all the possible states of > the psychosocial process as instantiated in individuals. In other > words, it doesn't seem to take too much to push someone out of normal > consensual reality into what we might call an ambulatory mass- > psychosis. The ease with which this alternate conformation of psychic > contents can be constellated indicates strongly that this sort of > group-Gestalt-mind has a place in human history. While it may have a > place in the future (hopefully on a much more evolved level than the > way it appears at present), the most parsimonious conclusion, and > also the only one subject to more than speculation, is that it has a > place in the past. The power of the cultic group-mind-mode and the > ease with which it can propagate suggests archaic roots that are both > broad and deep. > Cults as a rule at least aspire to something akin to a state of > participation mystique. Cult members stress their sameness, unity, > and unquestioned obedience to their all-wise, divine or at least > superhuman leader [the God-King raja or maharaja]. Individual > characteristics of any kind, especially desire or opinion, is > uniformly discouraged and viewed as sinful rebellion [spiritual > anarchy is taboo]. Just as the historical record makes plain was the > case in the days of the God-King, the leader of the cult is the only > one who is supposed to have will, desire, critical thought and so > forth. The cult leader assumes all of the privileges and > responsibilities of egoic consciousness for the cult. The members are > expected to be expendable, interchangeable units to be disposed of as > needed by the God-King in the furtherance of his goals, which are by > definition the goals of the cult and all cult members. It is a social > structure perhaps more akin to the social insects than to ordinary > contemporary industrial culture. > > The modern cult clearly aspires to but probably does not in general > achieve a fully collectivised pre-egoic state for the members of the > flock. In modern cults, concepts of sin and punishment are still > required to keep rogue elements at bay. Disobedience is at least a > theoretical option for present-day cult members, coming as they do > from modern individualist culture. According to Jaynes, in the > genuine archaic pre-egoic consciousness, disobedience was not > possible because the masses were not conscious enough to conceive > that they could want to do anything at variance with the commands > spoken by the Gods. (...)" > > > http://www.as220.org/jb/trans/cult.html >
