{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1232", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 1232, "subject": "Jaynes as influence on Wolfe's _Soldier_", "messages": 4, "voices": 4, "first": "1998-10-30T10:27:10+00:00", "last": "1998-10-31T14:16:38+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "John Bishop", "address": "jbishop at blkbrd.zko.dec.com" }, "date": "1998-10-30T10:27:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Jaynes as influence on Wolfe's _Soldier_", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Mothman _et_al_:\n\nIn 1991 I wrote Gene Wolfe, asking him whether he had read Jaynes,\nand whether that had influenced _Soldier_.\n\nHe wrote back saying that he had not read Julian Jaynes' book _The\nOrigin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind_ until\nafter he wrote _Soldier_, and found the book's hypothesis implausible. \n\n(He also said \"I would have liked to footnote every page.\" The\npublisher didn't go along with this, as they felt it would reduce\nthe number of sales.)\n \nSo there you have it--a beautiful theory slain by a single ugly fact.\n\nI also found Jayne's hypothesis unlikely, as it fails to explain\nwhy the world is not still full of people who see gods. I think he\npoints to reading as crucial (if I recall correctly), but while\nliteracy may work for some, there are still a lot of illiterates\nwho seem to be self-conscious. On the other hand, I like the\napproach--taking texts literally rather than \n\"spiritually\" has\nbeen successful in the past (e.g. finding Troy based on Homer),\nand it does explain the large number of statues in the past compared\nto the small number today (though I explain that by pointing to\nother PR outlets than statuary we now have).\n\nre Rostrum's quote of Lewis--we have actual examples of traditional\npeoples who have been extensively investigated; some do make the\ndistiction (between \"participating in this liturgy, or ... just going\nthrough the motions\") and others don't. In particular, I've read\nthat this is one of the reasons the Hopi and the Navaho don't get\nalong: the Hopi believe that correct form is important, but that\nritual doesn't require sincere feeling; the Navaho believe that\nsincere feeling is crucial but form is secondary.\n\nIt's easy to say wierd things about the Classical world and not be\nproven wrong; it's harder when there are living people to question.\nWhile the Hopi are not the ancient Egyptians, etc., I think we can\nusefully look to recent anthropological work to illuminate the past.\n\nre _Snow_Crash_: it was fun, but the basic premise is just wrong;\nSumerian is _not_ the first language--it's maybe the oldest one we\nhave texts from, but that's different. Plus it's not a \"brain-stem\nhacking\" tool; I've looked at it in passing and it's just another\nlanguage. As a BA in Linguistics, I've not yet seen SF which gets\nLinguistics right at all; the tendancy is to go wild on the wildest\nversion of Whorf' hypothesis, or to get some basic concept wrong.\nAs an MSc in Computer Science, it's the same for computing. This\nis not to say that there couldn't be a tool for programming the mind\nvia language (indeed, advertising and so on show that there _is_),\nbut it's not going to be Sumerian.\n\n\t-John Bishop" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "1998-10-30T10:58:35+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Re: Jaynes as influence on Wolfe's _Soldier_", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, John Bishop wrote:\nre Rostrum's quote of Lewis--we have actual examples of traditional\npeoples who have been extensively investigated; some do make the\ndistiction (between \"participating in this liturgy, or ... just going\nthrough the motions\") and others don't. In particular, I've read\nthat this is one of the reasons the Hopi and the Navaho don't get\nalong: the Hopi believe that correct form is important, but that\nritual doesn't require sincere feeling; the Navaho believe that\nsincere feeling is crucial but form is secondary.\n\nIt's easy to say wierd things about the Classical world and not be\nproven wrong; it's harder when there are living people to question.\nWhile the Hopi are not the ancient Egyptians, etc., I think we can\nusefully look to recent anthropological work to illuminate the past." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Have you read Chesterton's critique (I think it's in _The Everlasting\nMan_) of the assumption you can draw valid inferences about ancient\npeoples by observing modern peoples who happen to have a similar\ntechnological level? If so, what do you think? (I'll try to find and\nsummarize it for you if you're interested.)\n\nOf course, I'm not sure what evidence Lewis had for his statements either.\nOne place he talks about the subject is his book about the Psalms; I'll\nhave to take another look at it.\n\n-Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Alex David Groce", "address": "adgroce at eos.ncsu.edu" }, "date": "1998-10-30T13:20:45+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Re: Jaynes as influence on Wolfe's _Soldier_", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "John Bishop wrote:\nIn 1991 I wrote Gene Wolfe, asking him whether he had read Jaynes,\nand whether that had influenced _Soldier_.\n\nHe wrote back saying that he had not read Julian Jaynes' book _The\nOrigin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind_ until\nafter he wrote _Soldier_, and found the book's hypothesis implausible. \n\n(He also said \"I would have liked to footnote every page.\" The\npublisher didn't go along with this, as they felt it would reduce\nthe number of sales.)\n \nSo there you have it--a beautiful theory slain by a single ugly fact.\n\nI also found Jayne's hypothesis unlikely, as it fails to explain\nwhy the world is not still full of people who see gods. I think he\npoints to reading as crucial (if I recall correctly), but while\nliteracy may work for some, there are still a lot of illiterates\nwho seem to be self-conscious. On the other hand, I like the\napproach--taking texts literally rather than \n\"spiritually\" has\nbeen successful in the past (e.g. finding Troy based on Homer),\nand it does explain the large number of statues in the past compared\nto the small number today (though I explain that by pointing to\nother PR outlets than statuary we now have)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hmmm. Also, if you assume that when people \"see gods\" they aren't actually\nseeing something externally present, IN ALL CASES, then the literary argument\nseems to fall down--St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, etc.--some of\nthe most notable God seers of all time aren't just literate, but are even\nauthors. Mind you, my personal explanation would be that they actually \"saw\nGod\"--not exactly the divine presence itself, but such that the phrase isn't\ninapplicable." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "re _Snow_Crash_: it was fun, but the basic premise is just wrong;\nSumerian is _not_ the first language--it's maybe the oldest one we\nhave texts from, but that's different. Plus it's not a \"brain-stem\nhacking\" tool; I've looked at it in passing and it's just another\nlanguage. As a BA in Linguistics, I've not yet seen SF which gets\nLinguistics right at all; the tendancy is to go wild on the wildest\nversion of Whorf' hypothesis, or to get some basic concept wrong.\nAs an MSc in Computer Science, it's the same for computing. This\nis not to say that there couldn't be a tool for programming the mind\nvia language (indeed, advertising and so on show that there _is_),\nbut it's not going to be Sumerian." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\tI think Stephenson intends the basic premise to be nonsense. Snow\nCrash is a comedy--I mean, when a book names the hero Hiro Protagonist, you\nshould expect any conspiracy theories it uses to be complete hocum-pocum. On\nthe other hand, Stephenson's computer stuff (if I recall) is quite good, but\nthen he was a programmer at one time (like Greg Egan). I don't think\nadvertising \"programs\" the mind--influences, sure, but as a Comp. Sci person\nmyself that's a long shot from programming. BOTNS sure influenced my mind, but\nI can't say it programmed it. And the subliminal message stuff that looked\nlike programming has now largely been discredited (the data was faked.) To\nactually \"program\" the mind, in my opinion, would require a stimulus that can\nbe shown to universally produce the same response in normal human beings (IE,\nif the program was to run and it failed for a man with a broken leg that\nwouldn't count) and the only thing close to that is vey basic human reactions,\nlike jumping at loud noises, etc. I can \"see through\" a lot of advertising. A\nTuring machine can't see through a program... Thus, if it existed, possesion\nlike in Long Sun WOULD be programming--a visual stimulus that actually \"takes\nover\" the mind." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "\"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.\" - John 8:32\n--\nAlex David Groce (adgroce at eos.ncsu.edu)\nSenior (Computer Science/Multidisciplinary Studies in Technology & Fiction)\n'98-99 NCSU AITP Student Chapter President\n608 Charleston Road, Apt. 1E (919)-233-7366\nhttp://www4.ncsu.edu/~adgroce" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Kevin J. Maroney", "address": "kmaroney at crossover.com" }, "date": "1998-10-31T14:16:38+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Re: Jaynes as influence on Wolfe's _Soldier_", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 01:20 PM 10/30/98 -0500, Alex wrote:\nOn\nthe other hand, Stephenson's computer stuff (if I recall) is quite good, but\nthen he was a programmer at one time (like Greg Egan). " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes and no. \n\nI can say this about the conclusion of _Snow Crash_ without spoiling it\n(and it's a fun book, well worth reading even with its significant\nproblems, some conceptual, some structural): The climax of the novel\ndegenerates into literal motorcycle race in cyberspace between antagonists\nwho would *both* have realized that the fastest way to \"get\" where they\nwere going would have been to drop out of the cyberspace and pop back in at\ntheir goal. The lack of \"teleportation\" analogues in the cyberspace is\ncompletely unconvincing but is absolutely vital for the plot of the novel. \n\nOther than that, his evocation of a cyberspace-VR community is at least as\nconvincing as Vinge's _True Names_. (Vinge by name, and _True Names_ by\nretrocontinuity, is mentioned in _The Fifth Head of Cerberus_, so this post\nis now officially back on-topic.)\n\nWombat, a.k.a. Kevin Maroney kmaroney at crossover.com\nKitchen Staff Supervisor, New York Review of Science Fiction\nhttp://ebbs.english.vt.edu/olp/nyrsf/nyrsf.html" } ] } ] }