On Dec 20, 2006, at 1:47 PM, hermandan0 wrote:

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?)

The link to the quote was at the bottom of the message, so there was no attempt to hide where the quote came from hermando... The link actually occurs in the Wikipedia article on bicameralism (the link for this was also given), as an example of implications for a group-mind and cults.

Sorry you missed the relevance, esp. re: group "members are invariably convinced that they represent the future of consciousness...", "participation mystique", "punishment (...) still required to keep rogue elements at bay", etc. The parallels seemed glaringly obvious to me.


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.

I didn't get that from the article, but it did have some interesting implications for any group-mind. Can you site a primary use of a group-mind re: the TMO that has been discussed recently?


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"?

I'm sure you could, but I don't think it would have the same impact since "the gods whose "voices" could no longer be heard" would not be as meaningful to many Buddhists, having evolved beyond that old idea by and large. It might be an interesting question as to why a group of people would seek to refine introspection to such a science without relying on the old idea of "god" or "gods".

Reply via email to