Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness, 9-12



The Oracles and Their Cessation

David C. Stove


p. 269 dead? rulers?

"a certain function ... of supreme importance which it does not now have.

{FALSE! Sleep-paralysis with attendant divine entities is now-a-days being more experienced regularly by more witnesses than ever prior in human history.}

Namely, it was the source of the voices of dead rulers, hallucinated by the living."

{Actually, the entities described in cuneiform texts as appearing to Sumerian (and to Akkadian) monarchs during their episodes of sleep-paralysis were typically the aeternal DINGIR ('deities'), not dead mortals of any kind.}

{Did Julian Jaynes never cease from uttering unhistorical falsehoods?!}

p. 270 Is the Iliad intended as genuine description, or is it written as tendentious satire?

"We think of the world of the Iliad as a cruel world ... : ... there is much slaughter in the Iliad ... ." {But is this litterary text realistic, or is it a piece of political satire meant slanderously, to make hereditary nobility look foolish by accusing them of crudities which were by no means any part of their refined courtly behavior (as testified to by archaiology)?}

{Do bear in mind that it was an effect of such litterature to eliminate most of the Minoan-style monarchies, which had been dominating the Aigaian-Sea region for quite some centuries. Sponsored by merchants (whose commerce was being impeded by the monarchies), such satiric poe:sy as the Iliad was able to throw a cloud of contempt upon the royal monarchies, so that they were mostly soon replaced, throughout most of Hellas, with mecantile-commercial democracies.}

{The very theme of the Iliad is slanderous (thus unrealistic, even on its face) : to claim that all the hereditary monarchies would be so frivolously offended by the elopement of a queen (Helene, of Mykenai), as to waste their nations' resources on a useless foreign war.}

p. 276 author D.C.S.'s demurring from Jaynes's basing wild hypotheses on inadequate, incomplete, defective information

"how can we trust ourselves to conclude, with the confidence Jaynes does, that Hammurabi ... had little or no inner life? How much do we know about Hammurabi ...? ... . ... it is impossible for us, situated as we are, to be rationally confident that we have here knowledge of the absence of inner life, and not just another humdrum case of the absence of knowledge of inner life. It is an old observation ... that if you look down from a tall building at people in the street, you get the illusion of looking at automata. ... But distance in time, assisted as it nearly always is by ignorance, also tends to produce the same illusion. ... Jaynes's theory must receive illicit help from this familiar source of error ... ."

p. 281 where is so-called "heaven"?

"gods ... are silent and withdrawn. But the first gods, if Jaynes is right, were precisely not in heaven but with us; and always on the job, too." {But where is the "heaven" occupied by deities? Ruling-classes may alleged that it is afar, out-of-reach in the inaccessible sky; but sacred books tell us otherwise : "The Kingdom of Heaven in within you" (saith the Gospel) -- and Taoist religion teacheth the same.}

{According to primitive (i.e., not oppressed by a ruling-class) peoples everywhere (AmerIndians, Siberians, Australian aboriginals, etc. etc.), deities are "with us" every night in our dreams, though largely absent from us while we are awake. Ruling-classes tend to suppress this fact, so that we (commoners) will not understand that we have every-night access to deities; and, so that, forgetful of this, we will accept instead the ministrations of whatever pseudo-religious "ministers" they appoint over us to over-awe us with their ridiculous hypocrisies.}

p. 284 impalpable deities

"Contact by touch with gods has hardly ever been so much as thought of."

{Deities's bodies (though indeed palpable by dreaming mortals) are, to waking mortals, generally impalpable because composed of a variety of "ectoplasm".}

p. 285 religionless tribes

"it had turned out that religionless societies, though they exist all right, are all extremely primitive."

{There are certain tribes in Africa among whom only one's ancestors are worshipped by oneself. To care only for one's personal guardian-angel (or spirit-guide) would be another way of bye-passing deities such as nature-spirits.}

pp. 287-8 doth sharing of a qualitative quintessence, among diverse persons, necessarily imply any "scattering of identity"?

p. 287

"How can the Son and the Holy Ghost be distinct from one another, yet each identical with the Father? {"He who hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father" (CH:L11 quoting EI 14:9).} ...

{This is an (alleged) instance of sharing of ousia (Hell.) or substantia (Lat.) by parties.}

But now see ... an odd

p. 288

kind of tolerance, in that they do not object to their identity being (so to speak) scattered. ... Each stands by his own identity-claim; but each also acknowledges, with perfect equanimity, ... the other person ... ."

CH:L11 = Kurillos of Hierosolume : Lecture 11.

EI = Eu-angelion kata Ioannes

p. 288 who is the "mad" one?

"Jaynes's theory ... is a variant of the madness theory of religion.

Could it be that nearly every human being ever born has been mad? ... . ... Jaynes's theory implies no less."

{Nay certes! But instead, Julian Jaynes himself can be easily recognized as stark, raving mad -- either that, or he is a most cunning hypocrite of a scoundrel.}



The Meaning of King "Tut" {TWT}

Julian Jaynes


p. 297 not intended to be viewed?

"treasures of Tutankhamun {TWT-<NH^-JMN} ... exhibited ... have been grossly misunderstood. ... We assume ... that pharaohs had themselves mummified up in fabulous pyramids out of selfish yearning for immortality, carved in effigy out of an elaborate pride, and

{It was the official state-doctrine in antient TL-MRJ (Aiguptos) -- just as it was in mediaeval China, and as it yet is in modern-day Nippon -- that the welfare of the country and its populace is dependent on religous rites performed by, and/or (mainly) on direct behalf of, the royalty, because (according to this doctrine) the deities are constantly observing treatment of the royalty, and are resolved to benefit the country and its populace only as well as the country's royalty are esteemed-and-treated, both when alive and when dead. [written 10 June 2017]}

consciously called themselves divine out of peaking ambition. ...

{Part-and-parcel of this official state-doctrine was that the deities required that the mortal human king be treated as if he were a living idol repraesenting the king of the gods, and that the king was therefore to be addressed as if divine, in speech by courtiers and by nobility alike. [written 10 June 2017]}

We forget that these objects were not meant to be viewed by us,

{They were meant to be viewed by deities.}

that the hieroglyphs were never intended to be read,

{They were meant to be read both by the king and by divinities assisting him, and (especially) by great deities who would read into them the high regard in which they themselves (the deities) were being, vicariously, held by mortal courtiers and mortal nobility through the king's cadavre's (and, therewith, his soul's) being honored. [written 10 June 2017]}

that the great gold mumy mask of the dead king ... was not meant to be seen,

{It was meant to be seen by great deities who would see in it the image of the mortal man whom they had made, in their own image, to be vicar on their behalf. [written 10 June 2017]}

being sealed away in nests of coffins and shrines within shrines ... ."

{These nested coffins were meant to repraesent aequivalents to maya-kos`a-s concentrically surrounding the atman; while these nested shrines (having engraven into them the hieroglyphic text of the Book of the Divine Cow) record (AEBA, p. 149) "a total reordering of the world, which had previously been a golden age and was still little differentiated : deities and humans alike ..., for death did not yet exist."}

AEBA = Erik Hornung (transl from the German by David Lorton) : The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife. Cornell Univ Pr, Ithaca (NY) & London, 1999.

{[WB:EM, p. 184] "The Egyptian ... believed that he would feed upon the celestial and imperishable food whereon the gods lived, but at the same time he spared no effort of expense to provide for his tomb{'s} being supplied at stated intervals throughout the year with perishable food". (His ghost could (supposedly) partake of the aithereal essence of the material food at those "stated intervals" in the tomb; and (more especially) his ghost's being supplied thus regularly by mortals would emphatically signal, to the deities' emissaries, his mortalearthling-recommended right to banquet with the deities in Heaven, evermore. [written 10 June 2017])}

WB:EM = Wallis Budge : Egyptian Magic.

p. 298 "Opening of the Mouth (and of the Eyen)" of the mummy; sometimes performed vicariously via a statue instead

"Facing him and beyond alignment with the coffin iself is [the decedent's official] successor ..., caped in the sacramental leopard skin usual in such succession scenes.

{"A priest clad in a panther's skin holds a censer containing burning incense in one hand, and a vase, from which he sprinkles water, in the other." (WB:EM, p. 201)}

In his hand is a wrench-like prying instrument called an adze; another lies on the table beneath ... .

{An adze is neither "wrench-like" nor is a "prying instrument" : it is, instead, a sharp-edged instrument for chipping away bits of wood in performing wood-carving.}

Just how these instruments were used ... is not presently known.

{How these instruments were used in this caerimony is tolerably well-known : "The Sem priest ... brought two instruments ..., called "Seb-ur" and "Tuntet" respectively, and touched the mouth of the statueor mummy with them, whilst the Kher-heb said, "... I have opened for thee thy mouth with the instrument of Anubis. ..." (WB:EM, p. 195)}

But the result ... is well known and described in hieroglyphics that translate as "The Opening of the Mouth" ... . ... And this curious phrase and ceremony was used with statues as well as mummies all over ancient Egypt."

{"Of all the ceremonies, the most important was that of the "Opening of the Mouth and Eyes," which was performed either on the mummy itself or upon a statue which represented it." (WB:EM, p. 192)}

{Cf. also the Bodish rite for opening the eyen of religious paintings of deities, in order to consecrate such paintings for ritual employment.}

p. 299 one's own personal divinity

"each person also had his personal god which told him what to do ... .

{The only manner wherein anyone (whether in antiquity or currently) hath been able to receive instructions from a certified "personal divinity" hath been in a dream : there, the "personal divinity" is able to display the appropriate guise and circumstances adequate to be certified to full satisfaction as one's authentic "personal divinity". Anyone relying on a mere voice heard while awake is likely to be hoodwinked as to identity and credentials of the voice's source, so that only willing dupe would rely on any such. [written 10 June 2017]}

In Mesopotamia, the personal god was the ili, while in Egypt it was called a person's ka {/KL/ (/K3/)}.

{In Bharata (India), this is known as one's "is.t.a-devata"; among Zarathustrians, it is known as one's "fravas^i; and among Roman Catholics, it is known as one's "guardian angel".}

{For a mere voice heard by one's own self while awake to be able to praesent any semblance of credible evidence of identity of itself, it would have to either (1) agree to send an emissary into one's dream under circumstance wherein reliable dream-personnel could cross-examine the evidence submitted to them by the emissary, or (2) to demonstrate adequate knowledge of one's personal circumstances (one's name, place and date of birth, one's kin and genealogy, one's past and praesent residential addresses, etc. etc.) so to be adequate in detail as to be acknowledged as an authentic waking-state variety of "personal divinity". [written 10 June 2017]}

{The total number of persons now relying on a "personal divinity" is approximately two billion (about a billion each of Hindus and of Roman Catholics); this is a far vaster number of persons than when, in high antiquity, this practice was likely limited to Dilmun (Yaimen), Meluhha (, Magan (<awman), H^apirti (<elam), Sumer, Akkad, TL-MRJ, H^atti, and Luwa.}

p. 301 did kings of TL-MRJ actually "hallucinate" at all?

"So, too, the monotheism {i.e., tyranny of one particular deity, supplanting co-operation among deities} of Tutankhamun's probable father and predecessor, Akhenaton. ...

{Yea : such as the at-least-putative paternity. It was because of the supposed blasphemous character of the father, that the son's mummy was never removed from the tomb (on the occasion when all other royal mummies were so removed by the then-existing government, so that they could be transferred to a praesumed-inaccessible location high on the side of a cliff) : it was evidently deemed that his father's irreligion would, by his mummy's proximity to them, contaminate them. [written 10 June 2017]}

Akhenaton could "hear" {not actually, but metaphorically only!; just as every modern-day Protestant preacher claims -- but metaphorically only -- to "hear" and to "obey" the voice of God} only the disk god of the sun, Aton, who probably {most improbable!} told him in hallucination something ...,

{The written records of this reign are extant : if the king had ever heard any praeternatural voices, this fact would have been recorded. It was not recorded nor ever alleged of him nor of any other TL-MRJ monarch; ergo, it did not exist at all in historic times, despite Julian Jaynes baseless speculations.}

and so obediently put down the idols and rituals of other gods." {This is all speculation.}

{Untrue! He had apparently been influenced during upbringing by foreign nurses.}

p. 301 can personal behavior be deduced from a conventionalized personal name?

"The young Tutankhamun heard voices inside his head. Probably at the command of his ka he had even renamed himself after his chief god : Tutankh-Amun means the living form of Amun." {This hearing and renaming are mere conjectures of Julian Jaynes's.}

{Various TL-MRJ monarchs had these elements (<NH^ + some deity's name) in one of their stylized royal names. None of them experienced any hallucination; if they had, it would have been recorded.}

{The compound name /TWT-<NH^-JMN/ signifieth 'mummy' (/TWT/) + 'life' (<NH^) + 'West [as abode of the dead]' (/JMN/, cognate with Skt /Yamana/, abode of Yama, guide for souls of the dead). Whoever applied this name to him meant that though alive he was, in effect, dead already : meaning that he was about to be murdered (as he soon was, thus dying in his youth). The entire traditional establishment was eager to dispose of someone of such a (conventionally-regarded-as) blasphemous background-and-ancestry.}



Greek Zombies

Jan Sleutels


p. 315 what, and how technically detailed, of "descriptions of mental life" would Julian Jaynes be satisfied withal, in order to concede that ordinary daily life of ordinary humans can at all fit his highly idiosyncratic definition of "conscious"??

"Although there is still a logical possibility {certainty, not "possibility"} that earlier cultures may have had the concept of {read "words for"} consciousness while failing {how?} to make use of {what, by never mentioning sensing nor perceiving anything?} it in their descriptions of mental life {what, such as lack of mentions in the Iliad of persons talking to each other ?}, the odds {what odds?} as heavily against {actually, for} it."

{Any act of sensing or of peceiving must be, by definition, "conscious". The Iliad and earlier litteratures are pervaded with mentions of sensings and perceivings, which are the main parts of "mental life" during ordinary daily activities.}

{N.B. It is self-evident that all acts of sensing and of perceiving are, per se, consciously experienced by all living beings; whereas, language-activity is merely a jumble of symbols (not necessary having any reference to experience, nor any application to experience) which do not require any consciousess to produce nor to juggle withal. A computer, proprely programmed, can produce vast arrays of language-based logical deductions without needing any consciousness (at least not in the usual description of computers' functioning) in order to do so. Julian Jaynes, in his extremely unwise acceptance of language-manipulation as evidence for "consciousness", is as irrational as he is in his rejection of evidence of commonplace, everyday experience of living beings : using this as (in his ill-considered judgement) supposed lack of evidence for "consciousness". [written 6 June 2017]}

p. 316 either ... or?

"Either cultures {praesumbly meaning "persons involved with such culture"; for, a culture (such as an art-style) cannot, being itself merely an abstraction, be conscious} were conscious without having the concept of consciousness, or

{It is very easy and commonplace to be conscious (by sensing, or by perceiving, anything) without having an word or phrase describing such an act; just as, it is easy and commonplace to perform any other sort of action without necessarily having in mind any word or phrase describing such other action.}

they were not conscious and could not possibly have had any theories at all."

{It is not at all necessary to be conscious in order to produce theories : computers (which are not usually considered "conscious") can readily be programmed to deduce theories.}

p. 326 the author is conjecturing "creatio ex nihil" (creation out of nothingness)

[Author's statement of the metaphysical principle rejected by the author :] "If consciousness is real now, then it has always been real ... ."

{There is no means whatsover for the primal substance to arise out of nothingness. Consciousness (the potential for-sensing-and-for-perceiving) is that primal substance which (according to such metaphysicians as have considered this problem) is the ground-of-all-being.}

{It is on the basis of taking awareness to be the ground-of-all-being that any hypothesis of its having arisen somehow out of something else, is definitively estopped. Julian Jaynes's hypothesis must needs be rejected on first principles. [written 6 June 2017]}



Dragons of the S^ang Dynasty [reprinted from ART/WORLD Magazine, 1980]

Julian Jaynes


p. 337 sacred objects

"objects like the roods and grails of Christendom,

the idols of Ur,

the arks of tabernacles, or

the Golden Enclosures of the Incas

are the emanative cores of mystical power ... ."

{The only material objects regarded, amongst non-class-ruled peoples, as bringing blessings are such natural objects in the material world as were indicated as such to them in dreams.} {Contrived artificialities such as rood, covenant-ark, golden enclosure, and such ilk are sought, instead, by membres of a ruling class.}

pp. 338-9, 341 Chinese dragon's hidden face, contrasted with Levantine idols displaying a pair of staring eyen

p. 338

"Often the face as a hole is hidden in a visual double entendre 3where the frontal dragon face can secondarily be seen to be made up of side views of

two dragons in head-to-head combat."

{According to traditonal Chinese dragon-lore, courtship between a dragon-couple can easily be mistaken by onlookers as combat.}

"at other early civilizations ... an emphasis on staring eyes at

{This would be an iconographic repraesentation of such a prayer as, "YHWH bless me and keep me, and make his face shine upon me, and give me peace".}

p. 339

the expense of other features was centrally important. ... . ... many thousands of alabaster eye idols from Brak in Mesopotamia, dating about 3300 B.C. All come from earlier civilizations than our own, ...

a ... mentality where people did not think as we do ... ." {This, along with such religious emblem as the falcon-like "eye of H.R (Horos)" were antique aequivalents to the mediaeval-and-modern Christian "sign of the Cross" : not really so much unalike, after all.}

{Roman-empire ships were commonly decorated with a pair of eyen on the bow, evidently so as to remind marine deities (e.g., Poseidon and his wife Amphi-trite) to help the pilot to guide the ship safely. Can it be affirmed, of antient Romans and antient Hellenes, that they "not think as we do"?}

p. 341

"Returning to the Shang dragon, we ... do not understand why its face in these vessels is hidden in the coils of ambiguity, unlike the eye-idols of earlier civilizatons."

{The hiddenness of political-state policy, in 2nd-millennium ante-Christian aira, is, by way of these iconographic conventions, contrasted with the relative openness of political-state policy in earlier millennia. [written 10 June 2017]}


Marcel Kuijsten (ed.) : Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness : Julian Jaynes's Bicameral Mind Theory Revisited. Julian Jaynes Society, Henderson (NV), 2006.