Jaynes as influence on Wolfe's _Soldier_

Alex David Groce · 30 Oct 1998, 13:20 · from urth-v0021.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: "Alex David Groce" <adgroce at eos.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: (urth) Re: Jaynes as influence on Wolfe's _Soldier_
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:20:45
Message-ID: <urth-v0021-0020 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0021/0020.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

John Bishop wrote:
> In 1991 I wrote Gene Wolfe, asking him whether he had read Jaynes,
> and whether that had influenced _Soldier_.
>=20
> He wrote back saying that he had not read Julian Jaynes' book _The
> Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind_ until
> after he wrote _Soldier_, and found the book's hypothesis implausible.=20
>=20
> (He also said "I would have liked to footnote every page."  The
> publisher didn't go along with this, as they felt it would reduce
> the number of sales.)
>    =20
> So there you have it--a beautiful theory slain by a single ugly fact.
>=20
> I also found Jayne's hypothesis unlikely, as it fails to explain
> why the world is not still full of people who see gods.  I think he
> points to reading as crucial (if I recall correctly), but while
> literacy may work for some, there are still a lot of illiterates
> who seem to be self-conscious.  On the other hand, I like the
> approach--taking texts literally rather than=20
> "spiritually" has
> been successful in the past (e.g. finding Troy based on Homer),
> and it does explain the large number of statues in the past compared
> to the small number today (though I explain that by pointing to
> other PR outlets than statuary we now have).

Hmmm.  Also, if you assume that when people "see gods" they aren't actually
seeing something externally present, IN ALL CASES, then the literary argume=
nt
seems to fall down--St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, etc.--some =
of
the most notable God seers of all time aren't just literate, but are even
authors.  Mind you, my personal explanation would be that they actually "saw
God"--not exactly the divine presence itself, but such that the phrase isn't
inapplicable.

> re _Snow_Crash_: it was fun, but the basic premise is just wrong;
> Sumerian is _not_ the first language--it's maybe the oldest one we
> have texts from, but that's different.  Plus it's not a "brain-stem
> hacking" tool; I've looked at it in passing and it's just another
> language.  As a BA in Linguistics, I've not yet seen SF which gets
> Linguistics right at all; the tendancy is to go wild on the wildest
> version of Whorf' hypothesis, or to get some basic concept wrong.
> As an MSc in Computer Science, it's the same for computing.  This
> is not to say that there couldn't be a tool for programming the mind
> via language (indeed, advertising and so on show that there _is_),
> but it's not going to be Sumerian.

	I think Stephenson intends the basic premise to be nonsense.  Snow
Crash is a comedy--I mean, when a book names the hero Hiro Protagonist, you
should expect any conspiracy theories it uses to be complete hocum-pocum.  =
On
the other hand, Stephenson's computer stuff (if I recall) is quite good, but
then he was a programmer at one time (like Greg Egan).  I don't think
advertising "programs" the mind--influences, sure, but as a Comp. Sci person
myself that's a long shot from programming.  BOTNS sure influenced my mind,=
 but
I can't say it programmed it.  And the subliminal message stuff that looked
like programming has now largely been discredited (the data was faked.)  To
actually "program" the mind, in my opinion, would require a stimulus that c=
an
be shown to universally produce the same response in normal human beings (I=
E,
if the program was to run and it failed for a man with a broken leg that
wouldn't count) and the only thing close to that is vey basic human reactio=
ns,
like jumping at loud noises, etc.  I can "see through" a lot of advertising=
.  A
Turing machine can't see through a program...  Thus, if it existed, possesi=
on
like in Long Sun WOULD be programming--a visual stimulus that actually "tak=
es
over" the mind.

--=20
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." - John 8:32
--
Alex David Groce (adgroce at eos.ncsu.edu)
Senior (Computer Science/Multidisciplinary Studies in Technology & Fiction)
'98-99 NCSU AITP Student Chapter President
608 Charleston Road, Apt. 1E (919)-233-7366
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~adgroce

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net