There was a question about animal sacrifice in a recent thread (see link below) and I asked a question regarding a point made by Zenster. Upon reflection I didn’t want to hijack the thread but it was an interesting hypothesis so I am posting it in this new thread and opening up the question to all.
So… per the difference proposed by Zenster and my question after it (below) were pre/proto-literate people not “self” aware in the sense were use the term in modernity? Is “I/me” ness a modern invention? http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=74684
I’m not directly familiar with the book you are referring to but I have occasionally heard this hypothesis that ancient, pre or proto-literate peoples had a fundamentally different mental take on the world, so different in fact that they could not be called “self aware” in the same sense we employ it in modernity.
I will get the book. I’m just trying to get a handle on the “difference” you are referring to in this thread so that I can more readily comprehend what the crux of this difference is that you are referring to. How are you defining this “difference” in consciousness in the context of pre-vs post conscious(ness) cultures?
This will end up in GD, I think. I’m no expert, but anyway, I think maybe we should be careful in differentiating ‘pre-conscious’, ‘pre-intellectual’ and ‘pre-literate’. There has been much discussion about how changes in technology (ie the development of writing, and printing, for that matter) has affected human consciousness and psyche (what Walter Ong would call noetics-- check him out-- intro to In the Human Grain, 1967). Perhaps the development of writing, as some say, enabled individuals to develop a sense of greater individual-ity that they lacked in oral-aural culture, in which tradition was all important and information that was not remembered was essentially lost, and the individual could dis-connect from face-to-face communication with other live individuals in his society to a different degree (the ‘autodidact’, for example-- see Marshall MacLuhan, The Gutenberg Galaxy, 1962 for lots of thoughts along these lines). Some see a great divide between Homeric sagas and the narrative works of Hesiod (a product of literate man, as writing enables works to become less formulaic-- a relative lack of narrative imagery being a hallmark of oral memory). And also noted is the development of the phonetic alphabet, in which meaning is removed from the sign and independent of similitude to it, enabling abstract thought-- the great difference between the mesopotamians and the Greeks, yaddah yaddah. (see Philip Leith, Information Ages. . ., 1998 introduction for a swell overview of a lot of this past work).
But whether any of this development in thought structure means that there was not thought at all before any of this is a sketchy proposition. There was obviously a time (evolutionarily speaking, and in a greater sense of time-scale than the above) when what would become man was less capable of the sort of thinking that we call thinking now. But Koko, for god’s sakes, had a sense of “self,” a decent vocabulary, and a pretty darn good facility for abstract thought, I’d say.
As far as ‘consciouness’, that’s something I know even less about. We could say that before Freud invented the ego, id, and superego, that none of these existed. Perhaps we could say that my great grandfather didn’t have consciousness, ‘as we know it.’
Thank you capybara. You raise some excellent points.
I guess my some of my confusion about this notion of pre/proto-literate cultures lacking awareness of a discrete individual “self” is reflected in some of the anthropological documentaries I have seen over the years where they are interviewing some jungle dweller of a pre-literate tribe about this or that and the native guide translating is making statements (assumedly accurately) that are specifically and discretely self referential.
ie. “I, Kumani, killed the tapir for my village but Ogaso of the Jaguar Clan says it was on his village’s hunting grounds and his bullies took it from me. We’re going to war!”
How is this that different from any commercial dispute? “It’s mine!” “No it’s mine!” I can’t see the lack of awareness of “self” in these scenarios. Maybe Zenster’s talking about something else or I’m just not grokking it.
Really sarcastic answer: Well, they were self aware enough to invent writing!
Attempt at a serious answer to the question: There are enough recent contacts between literate and preliterate people, and has been enough communication between them to suggest that there’s some sort of fundimental difference in mindset between the two groups. Also, there are cases where preliterate people become literate. Missionaries, or some other teachers come and teach them how to read and write. Wouldn’t that be difficult if there was a difference in self awareness?
I wanted to chime in again to say that this question has made me curious, and I didn’t mean to sound combatative in my last post. I’ve had the experience of teaching illiterate adults and kids to read and write, and watch the world of the written word open up to people. I take it so much for granted as part of my life - it’s been like breathing to me ever since I was three. I never thought about the self-awareness of my students pre- and post- reading, and what it meant about their cultures. Most were from Africa and had never been to school.
Literacy per se doesn’t have much to do with Jaynes’ bicameral-mind hypothesis. Jaynes believed the Iliad and Old Testament were written by bicameral (“not-self-aware”) folks. The distinction is in the content and meaning of that which is written.
For example, IIRC, one of Jaynes pet points was that in the Iliad, when people died, they simply ceased to be animate, while in the Odyssey (according to Jaynes, a unicameral, “modern” work) you start hearing about spirits and other such metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.
I suggest looking at the Mr. T Experience’s song “The Complicated History of the Concept of the Soul”. Lyrics are availible here: http://www.mtxstarship.com/lyrics/2-8.htm but I highly reccomend finding a copy of the song, as it is high quality punk rock music.
I learned recently that the father of the semilegendary first Pharaoh of united Egypt, ca. 3100BCE, was known simply as “King Scorpion”. This could have just been an soubriquet that expressed how he “stung like a scorpion” in battle. But I think the concept of personal names is closely allied with that of self-awareness, which led me to wonder if the very idea of “names” is a historical invention. It’s not hard to imagine that all names come ultimately from descriptive epithets, since this is obvious in cultures where people have names that clearly state something in their own language, for instance “Little Pearl”, or “Dances With Wolves”. With the exception of cultures like those of Asia, which consciously follow ancient traditions, it seems like most “nicknaming” cultures
are pre-literate, or newly literate.
Homo Sapiens were always homo sapiens with the same capabilites and limits. This reminds me of a column Cecil did Could early man only see three colors? Written language helped us to define and understand our world, it didn’t necessarily change us physically or physiologically.
I believe the true dividing line, or at least the time when a quantitative change in self-awarenes occurred was 35,000 years ago. Prior to that, anatomically modern humans were still using artifacts not that much different from their Neanderthal cousins. But then, the Aurignacians “invented” art. The handprints and hand stencils associated with cave art seem to indicate that the artist wanted to record his own “mark”.
The line between literate and pre-literate cultures has to be very fuzzy. In Teotihuacan, outside of Mexico City, which had no written language, I saw a mural supposedly representing Teotihuacan heaven. Everybody was having a good time but one guy was standing up and from his mouth was a modern day cartoon style balloon. Within the balloon were only small vertical marks. But obviously the artist was thinking about a way to represent language.
I think if you keep the term “self-aware” limited to the scope of how I believe you intend it, literacy has nil to do with being self-aware. Literacy has little to do with anything actually. The concept of I/Other comes with language not literacy. It’s not even so much language as it is if you can form the concept of I/Other you can probably speak. Some would take issue with that. The difference as I have noted above is the difference between something that thinks/feels “I feel sick” vs. “Sick.” In the latter case there is no concept at all of I/Other. This is not easy for us to comprehend because its not like the animal thinks every thing in the world feels sick, but rather, it doesn;t even think like that. When humans are first born, they have no concept of I/Other, a stage which is called primary narcissism. As they see that their own actions ie crying, etc. can’t always get it fed at it’s own schedule, it realizes that Mother is no longer simply an extension of itself but rather a different individual. This is the process of seperation/individuation though some people use that term for a later developmental stage.
I’ve re-read Julian Jaynes’ book many times. There’s a lot of very good thought in it, but I’ve alays felt that there was a lot of untrstworthy stuff as well. At times he veers dangerously close to pseudo-science (some would say right into it), and his writing at those times closey resembles that of the pseudoscientists. I say take Jayns with a megadose of salt.
Read Fontenrose on The Delphic Oracle, then compare this with what Jaynes has to say about it – Jaynes seems to be basing his theories on the Legend of the oracle, rather than the reality.
My latest criticism of his book – why the heck would a bicameral, pre-introspective, pre-conscious civilization ever come up with something like The Epic of Gilgamesh?