Subject: Re: Quick guide to postmodernism (was: Re: Gibson
From: James Phelps (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Oct 01 2005 - 21:34:18 EDT
Julian Jaynes connects schizophrenia with some return
to a bicameral brain. PM reflects a return of sorts
to a bicameral society?
- The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the
Bicameral Mind" - Julian Jaynes, (1976, 1990)
Perhaps there's a more recent edition of this book.
--- Eliot Handelman <email@example.com> wrote:
> brian wrote:
> > Eliot, could you please elaborate on schizophrenia
> > the disintegration of self? on or off list.
> Here's sort of a quick explanation about what I
> mean, which you
> can attempt to mesh with clinical literature if you
> like. The ref.
> that stays most with me is Arieti's "interpretation
> of schizophrenia."
> In classical psychiatry there is a concept called
> "the ego boundary."
> It's like
> a line around me that tells me where I stop and
> where the world starts.
> eg, I know that this is "my foot." If you ask such
> and such a
> schizophrenic, "what is
> this," pointing to his hand, he might say: "that is
> the hand."
> "The hand" isn't MY hand -- it's part of some sort
> of complicated system
> that I'm
> trapped in.
> There are associated complaints where people demand
> that a perfectly
> good limb be
> amputated because they have the unshakeable belief
> that it's not theirs.
> (there was an
> NYC story about this not too long ago).
> Certain aspects of the whole inner world of the
> schizophrenic are like
> that -- parts of
> the mind no longer seem to belong to you. It might
> happen that the
> dissociated part is
> one of your critics, real or imagined. You might
> feel controlled by
> cosmic forces that
> want to punish you. People might be able to read
> your thoughts, or
> machines are used
> to force you to recieve certain thoughts that aren't
> your own (the
> so-called "influencing-machine.")
> Artaud wrote, "the body has no use for organs."
> is a kind of schizophrenic code for asserting that
> your only sense of
> interiority is as a useless
> disturbance, an imposition from without. There's no
> inside. You can
> understand this in the same way as feeling that
> there's a hand at the end of your arm without
> necessarily feeling that
> its yours.
> In a PM situation, we're basically saying "this
> ISN'T actualy my hand --
> because "i" is
> really just a complicated social narrative or
> gentically originated
> projections. We are, in fact, extrusions of
> the world. The only thing left is a gigantic "we."
> The multicultrurism
> of the 90s expresses the same idea in
> a different way.
> It's a short hop from there to most or all of the
> major styles of pm.
> -- eliot
Yahoo! for Good
Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:12 EST