ASoIaF and 'Bicameral Mentality'

[Craving Peaches]

So the other day I found this wacky theory about how originally people were not self-aware, and that self-awareness only developed in response to the events surrounding the Bronze Age Collapse (for a better explanation see here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameral_mentality). Though I am not really convinced by the theory as a whole, one of the points got me thinking, as it reminded me of the magic in the series, and themes of GRRM's other works that I have seen @Phylum of Alexandria and others discuss in relation to ASoIaF. From the Wikipedia article:

Quote

Bicameral mentality is a hypothesis introduced by Julian Jaynes who argued human ancestors as late as the Ancient Greeks did not consider emotions and desires as stemming from their own minds but as the consequences of actions of gods external to themselves.

Quote

The theory posits that the human mind once operated in a state in which cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys—a bicameral mind, and that the breakdown of this division gave rise to consciousness in humans. 

It made me think of the Greenseers and skinchanging magic, and the Singers of the Children of the Forest. The idea of the 'Old Gods', whom are theorised to just be a collection of powerful Greenseer spirits, communicating in this manner with subordinates...

Following Jaynes' model, one would imagine the event that lead to the development of self-awareness in Westeros would be either the Migration of the First Men and subsequent interaction with the Children of the Forest, or the Andal Invasion. 

Quote

Jaynes further argues that divination, prayer, and oracles arose during this breakdown period, in an attempt to summon instructions from the "gods" whose voices could no longer be heard.[3]

Going by this, the loss of the 'connection' with the Old Gods/Greenseers could explain one reason why people willingly converted to the Faith of the Seven - the 'voices' of the Gods were gone.

Also, as @Tradecraft pointed out in their Bronze symbolism thread regarding when certain theories were 'fashionable', this theory was around in the 1970s which could potentially mean the Author was exposed to it. Wikipedia says Jaynes' book was nominated for the National Book Award in 1978 so it should be possible.

Any thoughts?

Edited July 17, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[Tradecraft]

I like it. @Craving Peaches

We even have lots of Jeynes in the books, so I can see that as a reference (mayhaps). 

Glad you liked my piece on Bronze Symbolism. I probably could go deeper. I got lazy with my examples from the text and focused too much on the real world history (because it's not the most popular subject). 

 

[Nathan Stark]

I think Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras etc. pretty much invalidates the model Julian Jaynes came up with. Philosophy requires self-awareness, and there were plenty of bronze-age philosophers. Just because it's hard for us to relate to the world ancient people lived in, and just because its hard for us to empathize with how they tried to make sense of their world, doesn't mean they lacked the kind of self-awareness that we moderns believe we have.

Granted, this is the first I'm hearing of Jaynes and his theory, so I could be entirely off base about what I think he's arguing. But models themselves are only as good as the input they recieve. Just my two cents.

17 minutes ago, Tradecraft said:

I like it. @Craving Peaches

We even have lots of Jeynes in the books, so I can see that as a reference (mayhaps). 

Glad you liked my piece on Bronze Symbolism. I probably could go deeper. I got lazy with my examples from the text and focused too much on the real world history (because it's not the most popular subject). 

 

I think the abundance of "Jeynes" is a reference to "genes," as in "Jeyne Poole" = gene pool.

[Craving Peaches]

8 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

think Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras etc. pretty much invalidates the model Julian Jaynes came up with. Philosophy requires self-awareness, and there were plenty of bronze-age philosophers. Just because it's hard for us to relate to the world ancient people lived in, and just because its hard for us to empathize with how they tried to make sense of their world, doesn't mean they lacked the kind of self-awareness that we moderns believe we have.

Granted, this is the first I'm hearing of Jaynes and his theory, so I could be entirely off base about what I think he's arguing. But models themselves are only as good as the input they recieve. Just my two cents.

Yeah, I am not convinced by the theory either. For one, if the development of self-awareness comes from cross-cultural contact/more complex societies, then I still would have expected it to originate before Jaynes proposes, when people first stared trading and living in large cities.

But I think based on when the theory was popular, there is a possibility that it influenced the magic system in the books.

[Tradecraft]

26 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

I think Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras etc. pretty much invalidates the model Julian Jaynes came up with. Philosophy requires self-awareness, and there were plenty of bronze-age philosophers. Just because it's hard for us to relate to the world ancient people lived in, and just because its hard for us to empathize with how they tried to make sense of their world, doesn't mean they lacked the kind of self-awareness that we moderns believe we have.

Granted, this is the first I'm hearing of Jaynes and his theory, so I could be entirely off base about what I think he's arguing. But models themselves are only as good as the input they recieve. Just my two cents.

I think the abundance of "Jeynes" is a reference to "genes," as in "Jeyne Poole" = gene pool.

Are you f*cking kidding me?

Jesus Christ. 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Tradecraft

[Alester Florent]

22 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

I think Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras etc. pretty much invalidates the model Julian Jaynes came up with. Philosophy requires self-awareness, and there were plenty of bronze-age philosophers.

Were there? I can't pretend to be an expert in the Bronze Age, but I'm not aware of any real philosophy recorded from that era. Pythagoras, the earliest of those names above, was born in the 6th century BC, around 500 years after the end of the Bronze Age. The earliest Greek philosophers, Thales et al, were no more than a hundred years earlier than him.

The first great eastern philosophers: Confucius, Lao Tzu, Siddartha, etc. were roughly contemporary with Pythagoras.

Zoroaster was probably the earliest individual we can identify as a philosopher, and his dates are unclear, but most estimates place him in the Iron Age, with the earliest coming right at the end of the Bronze Age.

Earlier than that the only figure I can think of who could qualify as a philosopher is Akhenaten, but he is generally regarded as a complete revolutionary in his metaphysical thinking, suggesting that before him there wasn't a great deal of philosophical tradition.

[Ser Arthurs Dawn]

I love smart people. That's all of you up there, btw. ♥♥♥

[Nathan Stark]

13 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Yeah, I am not convinced by the theory either. For one, if the development of self-awareness comes from cross-cultural contact/more complex societies, then I still would have expected it to originate before Jaynes proposes, when people first stared trading and living in large cities.

But I think based on when the theory was popular, there is a possibility that it influenced the magic system in the books.

Eh, it wouldn't really surprise me if George read the book in the 70's. He's generally pretty good at staying up to date in scientific/acedemic literature, being a science fiction and fantasy writer. So maybe. I kind of doubt it though. The series portrays the weirwoods, the Old Gods, and the faith of R'hollor as having real magical weight behind them in ways that can be verified, something we never really see with the Faith of the Seven. (Yes, I know Davos had that vision of the Mother one time, but he was starving and burning up on a rock in the ocean, and the Mother told him to kill Melisandre, something he already wanted to do anyway.) I feel like the bicameral mind idea undercuts the magical elements of the story somewhat, since the theory relies fairly heavily on people hallucinating. Interesting to think about, though.

18 minutes ago, Tradecraft said:

Are you f*cking kidding me?

Jesus Christ. 

Hey, I just read these books. I'm not claiming every reference is a home run.

[Tradecraft]

3 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

Eh, it wouldn't really surprise me if George read the book in the 70's. He's generally pretty good at staying up to date in scientific/acedemic literature, being a science fiction and fantasy writer. So maybe. I kind of doubt it though. The series portrays the weirwoods, the Old Gods, and the faith of R'hollor as having real magical weight behind them in ways that can be verified, something we never really see with the Faith of the Seven. (Yes, I know Davos had that vision of the Mother one time, but he was starving and burning up on a rock in the ocean, and the Mother told him to kill Melisandre, something he already wanted to do anyway.) I feel like the bicameral mind idea undercuts the magical elements of the story somewhat, since the theory relies fairly heavily on people hallucinating. Interesting to think about, though.

Hey, I just read these books. I'm not claiming every reference is a home run.

No,  I think you're right. I can't believe I didn't pick it up. 

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Nathan Stark said:

(Yes, I know Davos had that vision of the Mother one time, but he was starving and burning up on a rock in the ocean, and the Mother told him to kill Melisandre, something he already wanted to do anyway.

Besides that, both Catelyn and Arianne have their prayers answered.

1 minute ago, Nathan Stark said:

I feel like the bicameral mind idea undercuts the magical elements of the story somewhat, since the theory relies fairly heavily on people hallucinating.

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that the magic wasn't real. I was proposing that the 'Bicameral Mind' could have been how the Greenseer/Old Gods lead societies worked, with the Greenseer connected to the weirwood giving the 'commands' to others. But due to coming of the First Men/Andals this relationship was disrupted and people were less inclined to Old Gods because they could no longer 'hear' them, as the ability to communicate with the Greenseer/Gods was disrupted.

[Craving Peaches]

8 minutes ago, Ser Arthurs Dawn said:

I love smart people. That's all of you up there, btw. ♥♥♥

Love you too 

Also, you should include yourself in that category. 

[Nathan Stark]

14 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

Were there? I can't pretend to be an expert in the Bronze Age, but I'm not aware of any real philosophy recorded from that era. Pythagoras, the earliest of those names above, was born in the 6th century BC, around 500 years after the end of the Bronze Age. The earliest Greek philosophers, Thales et al, were no more than a hundred years earlier than him.

The first great eastern philosophers: Confucius, Lao Tzu, Siddartha, etc. were roughly contemporary with Pythagoras.

Zoroaster was probably the earliest individual we can identify as a philosopher, and his dates are unclear, but most estimates place him in the Iron Age, with the earliest coming right at the end of the Bronze Age.

Earlier than that the only figure I can think of who could qualify as a philosopher is Akhenaten, but he is generally regarded as a complete revolutionary in his metaphysical thinking, suggesting that before him there wasn't a great deal of philosophical tradition.

Yeah, that's a fair point. That said, I do think there is one significant flaw in the theory in that it doesn't really account for the Epic of Gilgamesh. That story is centuries older than the first chapters of the Bible, yet Gilgamesh has a character ark where he learns to be a better king to his people, grieves for his friend, and saves the world. Much of his story features introspection of the sort that Jaynes argues didn't really exist at the time. I tend to think that where you have written language, you have self-awareness, and arguably producing any kind of art needs a sense of self reflection.

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Nathan Stark said:

That said, I do think there is one significant flaw in the theory in that it doesn't really account for the Epic of Gilgamesh. That story is centuries older than the first chapters of the Bible, yet Gilgamesh has a character ark where he learns to be a better king to his people, grieves for his friend, and saves the world. Much of his story features introspection of the sort that Jaynes argues didn't really exist at the time. I tend to think that where you have written language, you have self-awareness, and arguably producing any kind of art needs a sense of self reflection.

Jaynes' argument for that is that the introspective elements were added in by later writers. Not sure if I believe that though...

[Nathan Stark]

11 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Besides that, both Catelyn and Arianne have their prayers answered.

That's more down to pure coincidence or to the author putting his thumb on the scales for the sake of narrative catharsis. Some people claim to have had their prayers answered in real life, too, but that doesn't really prove the existence of God. Compared to some prayers being answered in a way that is debateable, you have the wierwoods actually being a magical hivemind, and you have Thoros invoking R'hollor to bring Beric back from the dead multiple times. I haven't seen evidence of the Seven doing anything similar.

12 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Jaynes' argument for that is that the introspective elements were added in by later writers. Not sure if I believe that though...

The problem with that argument is that you can't prove or disprove it either way. 

[Craving Peaches]

4 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

The problem with that argument is that you can't prove or disprove it either way. 

Theoretically, if they found tablets containing earlier versions of the Epic they could compare them, but...

7 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

Compared to some prayers being answered in a way that is debateable, you have the wierwoods actually being a magical hivemind, and you have Thoros invoking R'hollor to bring Beric back from the dead multiple times. I haven't seen evidence of the Seven doing anything similar.

The magic doesn't prove they exist either though. People performing the magic attribute it to R'hlorr, but it could just be an independent thing or different. And the Old Gods could just be Greenseers. There's no definitive proof of any of the Gods existing, just a magic force that can be manipulated.

[Nathan Stark]

18 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

The magic doesn't prove they exist either though. People performing the magic attribute it to R'hlorr, but it could just be an independent thing or different. And the Old Gods could just be Greenseers. There's no definitive proof of any of the Gods existing, just a magic force that can be manipulated.

That's true, but not really what I was referring to. I admit I could have been clearer with my phrasing. My argument is that the Faith of the Seven does not have magic backing it up, but the faiths of the Old Gods and of R'hollor do. The Faith of the Seven's power is institutional in nature more than magical, and is a throwback to the author's own Catholic upbringing. We don't have any examples of the Faith of the Seven being magical in nature beyond a handful of examples that don't really stand out as magical.

 

24 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Theoretically, if they found tablets containing earlier versions of the Epic they could compare them, but...

One might argue that it is... a matter of faith.

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, Nathan Stark said:

My argument is that the Faith of the Seven does not have magic backing it up

It's more like they don't have magic users backing them up, in my opinion. But that is arguably a good thing, because most magic seems to require (blood) sacrifice. Still, maybe next book we will see some 'miracles', especially since the Faith is growing more prominent with the High Sparrow in charge and the return of the Faith Militant.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

Interesting idea. The best evidence in support of it would be similar stuff popping up in his earlier work, which is unclear to be honest.

Bicameral mind would be most relevant for stories where mind-magic is more prevalent in ancient or undeveloped cultures, and in my recollection the only examples of that in GRRM's works are ASOIAF and A Song for Lya. The Shkeen in A Song for Lya are remarkable for living in the same primitive (and childlike) state well before human civilizations arose, and even as humans have mastered intergalactic travel. And they are the ones who have a collectivist cult based on a psychic organism, which operates much like the weirwood and weirnet. 

One thing that's interesting about A Song for Lya is that it's a sci-fi story. The main characters are scholars, and they throw around some theoretical banter when discussing the Shkeen. So perhaps one strike against the possibility that GRRM was explicitly thinking about bicameral mind theory is that he doesn't actually name drop it in A Song for Lya, and definitely could have. Still, it's not impossible.

[James Arryn]

On 7/17/2023 at 12:53 PM, Alester Florent said:

Were there? I can't pretend to be an expert in the Bronze Age, but I'm not aware of any real philosophy recorded from that era. Pythagoras, the earliest of those names above, was born in the 6th century BC, around 500 years after the end of the Bronze Age. The earliest Greek philosophers, Thales et al, were no more than a hundred years earlier than him.

The first great eastern philosophers: Confucius, Lao Tzu, Siddartha, etc. were roughly contemporary with Pythagoras.

Zoroaster was probably the earliest individual we can identify as a philosopher, and his dates are unclear, but most estimates place him in the Iron Age, with the earliest coming right at the end of the Bronze Age.

Earlier than that the only figure I can think of who could qualify as a philosopher is Akhenaten, but he is generally regarded as a complete revolutionary in his metaphysical thinking, suggesting that before him there wasn't a great deal of philosophical tradition.

Lol, I was all set to propose Akhenaten…it’s impossible to isolate his motivations, may have been political or w/e, but the probability imo is that he was ~ philosophical..until I got to your last para. Also there were ‘sages’ in India going back to Dirgatamas and the like, and they have been ~ interpreted as philosophers down the ages. 

Edited July 22, 2023 by James Arryn