Jaynes presents a well ordered argument that human consciousness as a recent development - about three to four thousand years old. Prior to the origin of consciousness, according to him, human nature was ruled by a bicameral or two chambered mind. In his explanation, half the brain told the other half, in the voices of gods (as evolved from dead kings or dominant creatures), what to do in times of stress. He uses a wide range of disciplines to explain his point - that consciousness is tied in with the development of language. The disciplines he employs are his findings in archeology and literature - primarily the Iliad and the Bible. Jaynes outlines that consciousness is not a thing but rather a process. Consciousness of self came, he argues, with a shift in the relative functioning of the two hemispheres or two chambers. He maintains that consciousness does not affect human activities, as we can evolve whole civilizations without any self awareness. The problems I am having with the book are many. First, as we evolved into this voice controlled mode, we had to evolve out of the hunter-gatherer mode over to a more sophisticated structure. As I read it, we evolved from hunter gatherers, needing a mechanism for control. In response to this need for control, we further evolved our metaphoric language, then we broke it down.

Trying not to invoke the chicken or the egg argument, did we not need some sort of intellectual ability or self consciousness to create the hierarchy and gods to begin with. To say that the dominant man was the only one allowed to speak is quite a leap to make. Going on, on an assumption that is not really provable, the rest of the argument is somewhat weakened. I guess my real question is, where did we get the sophistication to even dream up of leaders, leaders with voices and the need to "laydown-the-law" so to speak. That is quite the leap from the grunting hunter gatherers I am lead to imagine. It is still a plausible theory. Analogies can be drawn to works of authors with plausible but non provable arguments like Erich von Daniken, whose concept that life evolved from extra terrestrials is plausible but not provable. Moving on, he explains that the decline from bicamerality happened somewhere toward the second millennium, a change in the brain physiology I believe. Lastly, he says that what remains are vestiges of the past in the persona of religious heritage, hypnosis and schizophrenia.

We are reading about nothing less than the origin of consciousness. That is a very big pill to swallow. How did we start to become aware of ourselves? Jaynes presents us with the idea that the mind or consciousness as we know it is a cultural phenomenon. Language is the vehicle in the cultural arena. We are left with the question I had above about the development of civilization. How is civilization possible without self awareness or consciousness? The Achilles and Moses auditory hallucinations argument is somewhat plausible but very difficult to prove. According to Jaynes, we were I noble automatons who knew not what they did.'

In the tradition of Neil Evernden, he seems to be invoking lots of 'facts' to prove a point he feels strongly about. In discussion with Steve, I get the impression that Evernden feels very strongly about the environment and has strong opinions about it. Not discounting the feelings he has and he makes good points, he uses lots of philosophy to explain his point. Along the same lines, I am getting a sense that Jaynes may feel strongly about his thesis that consciousness is evolved from language but is using disparate proofs to explain it. Did we behave like we drive cars and played tennis and when beset by stress, reach deep within for the God inside all of us? Maybe. When there where difficulties, the right side became confused.

Conscious control began to evolve, it was a learned response. It remains with us in Schizophrenia. How does the new discoveries regarding schizophrenia's genetic component work with Jaynes' argument? If it evolved in and out and some remain, it might explain the inherited quality. I would need some kind of background to help me understand the sections regarding the neurological references. In order to actually analyze his proof, I would have to spend more time in analysis of the references and the sources, a task I hope that the discussions and research will help me do.

Miguel Llora

Why is it that the characters in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Iliad and the oldest books of the Bible behave in a manner that seems utterly alien to modern readers, but by the time of the New Testament and the classic Greek dramatists charcters seem to have the same feelings and motivations of modern man? Jaynes addresses this question, among others, in one of the most thought provoking books I've read.

Basically, he posits that lacking full consciousness (yet having language), prehistoric man's actions were often governed by voices, which are in many ways similar to certain forms of schizophrenia. His full argument is much deeper and far more subtle than I can deliver in a one-line synopsis.

The book is not a drum-beating New Age manual for making peace with our proto-selves, although many readers seem to have taken just that away from his discussion on the origins of religion.

The thesis is, of course, utterly unproveable, and both orthodox classicists and anthropologists are at odds with it. But it is remarkable in its originality. One needn't be convinced by the book to enjoy it; read it purely for Jayne's breadth of knowledge and his originality of thought and it will be well worth your time.

I cannot say enough good things about this book. This is an absolute masterpiece, one of the top five books of the Twentieth century. It is among my top three favorite books of all time. This book is remarkably well-written and very readable. It contains the ultimate combination of anthropology and neurology to explain the origins of human consciousness. Never before have I read a book in which the author combined such diverse fields as anthropology and neurology and united them into such a harmonious and complementary whole. The various sub-plots and reinforcing arguments seem to come from all directions to fortify and substantiate Jayne's main thesis. Written in 1990, this book represents the cutting edge in modern man's search for understanding in this maze of life. This is a literally prophetic work of the highest caliber and should be mandatory reading for all college-educated Americans. One of the greatest books ever written. Buy it now.