From: Stephen D. Williams (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 05 2001 - 23:13:18 PST
John Regehr wrote:
> > It doesn't mention 'bicameral mind' anywhere (according to the index and my
> > memory). It seems somewhat orthogonal to me currently. See my next post.
> Why would it mention Jaynes' stuff? I was under the impression that it
> has been pretty thoroughly discredited. I could be wrong, though - I
> just remember talking about it with some psychologists at some point.
Because it seems to be directly derived from his book's theories. The
Neo-Tech author is saying that between modern people, most are still bicameral
and being controlled by those who are truly 'conscious': lawyers, priests,
politicians, etc. As I said, I don't buy into either version, but I thought
the Neo-Tech spin was pretty wacky. Saying that many people more or less
blindly follow 'authority' is of course mostly true and pretty much always has
> A good book about the mind is Pinker's _How the Mind Works_. Lots of
> good evolutionary psychology explanations for things. For whatever
> reason, these often ring true for me.
Pinker is one of my favorite non-fiction authors (along with Richard Dawkins,
'The Selfish Gene'). I really liked "The Language Instinct".
-- firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com swilliams@Jabber.com Stephen D. Williams Insta, Inc./Jabber.Com, Inc./CCI http://sdw.st 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 05 2001 - 21:13:04 PST