Quote:
Originally Posted by ahi
My understanding is that a (very bluntly oversimplified) view of Jaynes' theory is that everybody suffered from intense schizophrenia if you go back far enough.
In that light, I don't think a schizophrenic (or a bicameral) not knowing that a heard voice comes from what another external observer might term another aspect of his self (but what he/she himself/herself feels as "other" as anything spoken by another human being) necessarily has implications on human intelligence.
Did you read/interpret things differently?
- Ahi
|
I'd say I interpret it differently. For one thing, I wasn't aware that modern schizophrenics often, usually, or ever, interpret their "other voices" as Gods speaking to them, which is why I have some doubts about the theory in the first place (not
completely dispute it, but have doubts).
The unstated but implicit supposition being made is that, if pre-3000BC humans had essentially modern schizophrenia, however intense, they would all or mostly assume that their inner voices were divine in nature, unlike modern humans with essentially the same affliction who seem to assume the voices are simply other sides of themselves, or "other people" trapped inside them.
Maybe it is the terms and definitions that are in question, but if Jayne's theory suggests pre-3000BC humans had our modern schizophrenia, but interpreted their inner voices differently than we do today, that seems to suggest a lesser pre-3000BC base intelligence... a modern conceit that has been largely disproved.
On the other hand, if Jayne is suggesting the pre-3000BC affliction was only
similar to schizophrenia, but had some significant difference(s) about it, it removes the implicit assumption that pre-3000BC humans were not smart enough to understand what was going on inside them as well as modern humans could... their affliction was indeed unique, and so a unique perspective on it would be reasonable to assume.
Of course, with so little evidence to work with, it's a fine line either way, and I realize that. I'm just voicing my concerns about the theory as stated to my understanding, which I admit may not be complete.
(
Whew. I think I'm gonna go get a beer and scratch my a$$.)