NOTE: The Paragraphs You See Below => Have Been Collected From All Of The Various Discussions On The Topic Of Consciousness, That Henry Gurr Could Find.

By Reading This Summary Overview Webpage Below =>

It’s A Marvel! It’s So Incredible!! The Wonderous, Wonderful, Amazing, Gift Of Consciousness!!

… It is a superb fact that "We know what is around us, AND know that we know this!" ! WOW !!
… And, one of the neat things about consciousness, is that we know we are conscious!
… AND further, We know that we know that we know, that we are conscious!!
… Plus we know that other persons (and even animals), around us are Coconscious!

During Our Perceiving Of The EXTERNAL World => Our Problem Solving Brain, In Response To The Problems Of Life Coming At Us, Finds A Partial Fit Problem Solution: And If Of Sufficient Merit, Quality, Coherence, This Solution Will Then Presented To Our Conscious Mind. =>
In This Way => Our Brain Generates, Constructs, Creates => Our Primary Consciousness. And Subsequently, as Mental Arrivals, We Perceive A Glorious 3D World In Full Color Around Us!
… We see and fully know are present => not only trees, we see branches, bark, leaves, and all waving in the wind!
… We see not only books, we see chapters, paragraphs, sentences, words, letters, numbers, and the flipping of pages!
… This Is How, By Our Awake Conscious Mind, We Are Kept Grounded, By “Good O’l Reality '', And Not Go Off Into Dreaming Or Other Hallucinations! When Our Problem Solving Brain, In Response To The Problems Of Life Coming At Us, Finds A Partial Fit Problem Solution, Of Sufficient Quality, which then is presented to our conscious mind. .
… When we are fully aware of the above “Perceivings”, we say we are conscious of them. But, this begs the questions => “How do we become conscious”? And what is consciousness?”
NOTE: The 3 concepts of => Consciousness, Conscious Mind, or Conscious, in ordinary conversation may refer to different things. Therefore, to be more exact & clear, these 3 concepts, which somewhat refer to the same “thing”, Henry Gurr’s In his Writing on his WebPages calls this Primary Consciousness.

Click Here For Entire Article. Wikipedia Says =>
…”Consciousness, at its simplest, is awareness of internal and external existence. However, its nature has led to millennia of analyses, explanations and debate by philosophers, theologians, and all of science. Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied or even considered consciousness. In some explanations, it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of mind. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition. Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not.[3][4] The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises a curiosity about whether the right questions are being asked.
Examples of the range of descriptions, definitions or explanations are: ordered distinction between self and environment, simple wakefulness, one's sense of selfhood or soul explored by "looking within"; being a metaphorical "stream" of contents, or being a mental state, mental event or mental process of the brain.”

The Neat & Absolutely Astounding & Wonderful Properties Of Primary Conscious Are That =>
… We know when we are fully awake and fully conscious, and alive, and ready for action!! We know if we are mentally clear-eyed, fully competent and mentally & physically tuned, for the task as hand, feeling of high level of preparedness. And, we know the converse, such as light-headed, fuzzy minded, dizzy, or body out of balance. We know how much we are aware of (and typically in-tune-with), all 9 senses.
… Even more wonderful (and survival functional), we know the degree to which our overall mental condition (gumption), is up to handling the tasks facing us! We know if we are skilled enough, strong enough, have enough energy, and are in the correct place for action. These is especially important in dangerous situations when, we for example => Drive a car on very busy high speed highway, fly an airplane especially at take-off or landing, operating complex machinery especially negotiating through dangerous terrain, or critical building construction site maneuvers, not to mention leadership in warfare and international disputes, etc.
… Moreover (opposite to the above), we know the degree to which our overall mental & physical condition (low-gumption), IS NOT up to handling the tasks facing us! We generally know our functional level of Mind-Body-Tension. Such as Excessive Feelings Of => Over-Excited, Agitated, Ruffled, Upset, Keyed Up, Flustered, Over Wrought, Over Angered, Sick, Fever, Etc.
… Through it all => It is important to realize that with Primary Consciousness, => We generally know our “level of competence” (or lack of it)!
… And this sense of “ready for action” (or not “ready”), arrives with EVERY Problem Solving Brain Optimal (Best or Near Best) Problem Solution, and ALWAYS right along with =>

NOTE: The above has been copied from Henry Gurr’s => FULL Panorama View Into How Our Mind Works. AFTER the ABOVE Blue Link comes up, you can find =>

Now, Some Added Thoughts About => Our Problem-Solving Brain’s Entirely Generated, Constructed, Created => “Mental Model” Of Our External “Real World” Surroundings =>
…Which It Turn => Are Nearly Always Available As Primary Consciousness, And Mostly Experienced As Vision.
NOTE: The 3 concepts of => Consciousness, Conscious Mind, or Conscious, in ordinary conversation may refer to different things. Therefore, to be more exact & clear, these 3 concepts, which somewhat refer to the same “thing”, are in Henry Gurr’s WebPages called Primary Consciousness.
… Surely primary, is our conscious perception of the full-color, 3D world around us moment by moment, even parts of it remaining even if we close our eyes. And we can deduce, that it is our ever-present & dominatingly large and continuous sensory input from the surrounding environment, that AUTOMATICALLY initiates (and controls), the resulting and ever-present Primary Consciousness. (Our Primary Consciousness “view” of our surrounding world is often called a Mental Model, of our world.)
…In other words => Using sensory input and memory of past experiences, our Optimizing General Problem Solving Brain AUTOMATICALLY, SPONTANEOUSLY. GENERATES, CONSRUCTS, CREATES, Primary Consciousness for us! And with this Our So Created World, We See Before Our Very Eyes, What Is Around Us!. And similarly for ALL our other Mental Arrivals.
… Overall our Primary Consciousness of our surrounding 3D world, as a Mental Model, not only shows us where we are currently located, and at the edges is ready to show us any other place we move to, all the while using, refurbishing, and updating, saved into our Brain’s Memory, as a Mental Model.
…In other words, our Problem Solving Brain Automatically Spontaneously Generates, Constructs. Creates, Primary Consciousness, which is Our “Reality”! .
… This is the whole idea of. Our Problem Solving Brain’s Entirely => Generated, Constructed, Created …. says => Our Problem Solving Brain constructs, builds up, throughout our daily activity, our complete world in, and only in, our own minds. This leads, in turn, to the understanding that the whole universe. as we know it, strictly speaking, really exists only in our own minds.

… We May Reasonably Assume That => Nature Has Given Us Our Observed Consciousness, So That humans (and probably most animals and birds), will have increased mental efficiency and resultant mental & body performance in the real world, and thus improved general abilities. But most specifically for increased survival.
… Philosophers, and scientists, have long puzzled over just why we have Consciousness, and just how it is accomplished.
… HOWEVER & PLEASE NOTE WELL =>
It Is NOT Necessary To Inquire Further Into How Consciousness Works =>
… We Can Provisionally, And Simply, Take It (As Three Hypothesis), That =>
… a) We who, second-by-second, are the users of this marvelous surrounding world awareness provided by Consciousness, can readily list what these advantages might be, which are in agreement with Prof John R Searle, given elsewhere in this document. =>

… b) Thus, we may reasonably assume that => Nature has given us our observed Consciousness, so that humans (and probably most animals and birds), will have increased mental efficiency and resultant body performance (as mentioned above), and thus improved general abilities, but most specifically for increased survival. All this is well understood by Professor John R Searle, and illustrated in his passages, duplicated below in This Document You Are Currently Reading.
… c) In Darwinian Evolutionary Biology, there is a general rule => When Nature finds a “need”, Nature finds a way. And especially for “How Consciousness Works Inside The Mind (or Brain)”. And we should be content with this, and NOT inquire further into, the insides of how it works.
From Above 3 Paragraphs From PROPOSITION 19) Click Here For Full Explanation.

… When Asked For Clarification Of The Concept Of Consciousness => USCA Philosophy Professor Greg Weis, a long-term "student" of phenomenology and existentialism, especially Martin Heidegger, Edmund Husserl, Robert S Sokolowski, & Jean-Paul Sartre, said the following => .
… “Consciousness discloses the world: And Being manifests its self to consciousness. But these are not two activities or two events. They are rather two sides of the same activity or event, the "event of truth …Each feeds on the other …They are opposite sides of one coin.”
… “So far as we know, this is what it means to be a Human Being! Here we should philosophically step back and enjoy, just as a squirrel might perhaps enjoy a nut!”.
… “Conscious! It is the big mystery: [In it,] Being is not a thing, but an event! Consciousness allows the world to BE! The transcendence of all this, is to be accessed in in Jean-Paul Sartre’s slim book, ‘The Transcendence of the Ego.’.
… “To be, by our very nature, engaged in this event is what some contemporary philosophers in the phenomenological tradition, like Martin Heidegger, considered the deepest meaning of "being human. Even to many persons who work in contemporary analytical philosophy, the nature of consciousness has resisted complete clarification."

… An important author for Greg Weis is, Msgr. Robert Sokolowski, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. School of Philosophy, who says for example =>

… This above may be confusing. This is because Sokolowski is trying to pry open “The Mystery Of Being”, and using “Picturing” as the pry-bar. But since Being is such an academic philosophical mystery, the words are all balled up: Perhaps, as you read (and reread) over Sokolowski, keeping in mind the Ground Truths of my => Henry S Gurr’s “Explanation of How Our Mind Works”. This might help clarify.. And if you have any suggestions, please send to HenryG__USCA.edu

To Read Considerably More About Consciousness

After This Page comes up, see 78 each, Edit > Find > Conscious

C) Article: With Artificial Intelligence, Philosophy of Mind Has Become an Experimental Science.
By Casper Skern Wilstrup, Published in Machine Consciousness 12 min read, Sep 10, 2023.
…”It’s you. Yup, you, with your entire tapestry of experiences — the taste of your morning coffee, the smell of fresh-cut grass, the mesmerizing hues of a sunset. It’s the full range of your emotions: joy, sorrow, anger, desire, hate, lust, and that insatiable curiosity that keeps you asking questions and reading this article. This is the stuff consciousness is made of.”
…”If you’re scratching your head, thinking you still don’t get what consciousness is, maybe you’re making it more complicated than it needs to be. Forget the highfalutin philosophy and the twisted logic you’ve wrapped your brain around. Once again, remember when you were a kid? You existed then, too, and you understood what consciousness was without needing a dictionary or a PhD. In fact, you, like me, might first have grasped the gut-wrenching concept of death precisely because you knew what it felt like to be you, and the terror came from the thought of losing that experience. …. “
…”So where does our conscious experience come from? Easy: it springs from the stuff we’re made of. As I sit here, writing on my couch, laptop truly on my lap and coffee dangerously close to spilling, I recognize that I am this physical, natural thing — a meaty lump, if you will. My consciousness isn’t some mysterious other; it’s an intrinsic part of this physical me. …”
Click Here For Whole Article Which Covers “We know consciousness is real, we know what it is, and we’ve got a good idea of where it comes from. The next question is: how does it turn into the rich, complex experience that we — and probably other animals — know?”

D) Article: The Basic Theory of the Mind: A Physical Theory About What We Are.
…”The mind is one thing that has always fascinated and puzzled us. It is the only thing that we can be certain of existing, yet, apparently, we do not know exactly what it is, how it occurs, and why it occurs. This is in contrast to things outside the mind, such as houses, cars, and even other people, which we cannot be certain that they really exist—they may be just illusions—yet, apparently, we know what they are, how they occur, and why they occur. What is more, the phenomena of qualia and consciousness, such as the red color as it appears phenomenally red in our mind and our phenomenal conscious awareness and experience of that red color, have always been baffling—what is their nature, how and why do they occur, and cannot there be just the mind without them?”
|Click Here For Whole Article Which Covers “The mind and its phenomena of qualia and consciousness are non-material entities with information and information processing as their essence. They evolved into existence to help increase the survival chance of the species that possess them.”

E) Article: There Is No Such Thing As Unconscious Thought! A Behavioral Scientist Unravels One Of Our Most Cherished Conceptions. By Nick Chater, July 24, 2018.
…[Excerpt] The great French mathematician and physicist Henri Poincaré (1854–1912) took a particular interest in the origins of his own astonishing creativity. His achievements were impressive: His work profoundly reshaped mathematics and physics—including laying crucial foundations for Einstein’s theory of relativity and the modern mathematical analysis of chaos. But he also had some influential speculations about where many of his brilliant ideas came from: unconscious thought.
Poincaré found that he would often struggle unsuccessfully with some mathematical problem, perhaps over days or weeks (to be fair, the problems he got stuck on were difficult, to say the least). Then, while not actually working on the problem at all, a possible solution would pop into his mind. And when he later checked carefully, the solution would almost always turn out to be correct.
Clck Here For Complete Nick Chater Article.

MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS COPIED FROM => A Full Expounding: Unified Panorama View Into Henry Gurr’s “How Our Mind Works”,

PROPOSITION 12a): THE MAKING OF MEANING: In Accordance With The Above PROPOSITIONS 10). 10a), & 10b) =>
… The Learning-Memory-Perception Cycle (A Creative, Regenerative, Upward Spiral Of Ever Improved Previous Problem Solutions Saved to Brain’s Memory) =>
… Is The Sole & Entire Brain Memory Basis Of =>.Our Problem Solving Brain’s Ability To Both Guide And Achieve A Near-Optimum (Best or Near Best) Real-World Bodily Action.
…AND (Repeating An Above Discussion), AT THE SAME TIME PRESENT US WITH =>

…AND (Repeating A Previous Discussion), Although It Is Unknown (Even Inexplicable), How Our Brain Does It => Be Sure To Notice Very Well, About MEANINGS =>
…Our Problem Solving Brain Optimum (Best or Near Best) Solutions, Generates (Constructs Creates), All At once, Clear, Whole, Understandable, MEANINGS, Which Then Immediately Suddenly Automatically Spontaneously Mentally Arrive Into Our Consciousness, Along With Our Ongoing Experience Of Primary Consciousness.
… =>-In Other Words Our Problem Solving Brain Makes Meaning, Sense of Truth, Beauty, Recognition, Insight, Knowing, Comprehension, Sense of Clear Understanding, and Importance. And All This With Felt Certainty !
… To do this, our brain uses Massively Inter-Connected Central Nervous System Neurons Working Together, To Achieve An Optimal (Best or Near Best) Solution Into Consciousness. To Both Direct And Achieve A Near-Optimum (Best or Near Best) Real-World Bodily Action, And At The Same Time Present Us With A Coherent Conscious, Even Intellectual, Understanding Of The Situation In Our Primary Consciousness’. Mind’s Eye.

PROPOSITION 12b): All The While: Relevant Brain’s Memories Are Accessed, Used To Make Creative, Innovative, Improved, NEW Solutions, Which Mentally Arrive Into Consciousness, The Brain’s SELF-SAME MEMORIES ARE CORRESPONDINGLY REFURBISHED & UPDATED.
… Thus it is that in many cases => Long after the relevant body motions (or intellectual thoughts), have been completed, the relative survival value (& success) of these long ago plans, these motions, actions, thoughts becomes part of the updated memories, thus stored away for reuse, as a basis for New Future Better & Better Solutions on an ongoing basis.
This Above PROPOSITION 12b): Is Seen To Be Very Significant,
… Since It Says That, The Same Brain “Circuits” & “Methods”, That Originally Created Memories, Are Likely Re-Used, To Retrieve AND Creatively Improve Upon, Those Self-Same Memories.
Click Here To Go To => Full Expounding: Unified Panorama View Into Henry Gurr’s “How Our Mind Works”, Where May Be Found All 23 Propositions.

Henry Gurr Also Remembers Other Good Paragraphs About The Wonderful, Wondrous, Gift Of Consciousness, Yet To Be Located, These Will Be Added Here Asap.

NOTE1: The following article, helps us understand a lot about how Consciousness is essentially awareness, attention, attending, focus, thinking, mindfulness, etc. But, also this article helps us understand Julian Jaynes’ theory about how humans gained Consciousness relatively recently.
NOTE2: Below are 2 Links Where You Can Get Full Text Versions of Julian Jaynes’ Book

Click Here For Version From Archive.org.

Click Here For Version From Purdue.edu.
...************************* ….

Consciousness Began When The Gods Stopped Speaking: How Julian Jaynes’ Famous 1970s Theory Is Faring In The Neuroscience Age. By Veronique Greenwood May 28, 2015.

NOTE: Below Are “Quoted” Excerpts From The Complete Article Found By Scrolling Down: Click Here.
… :In the beginning of his book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” , Jaynes asks, “This consciousness that is myself of selves, that is everything, and yet nothing at all—what is it? And where did it come from? And why?” Jaynes answers by unfurling a version of history in which humans were not fully conscious until about 3,000 years ago, instead relying on a two-part, or bicameral, mind, with one half speaking to the other in the voice of the gods with guidance whenever a difficult situation presented itself. The bicameral mind eventually collapsed as human societies became more complex, and our forebears awoke with modern self-awareness, complete with an internal narrative, which Jaynes believes has its roots in language.”
********
“Eric Schwitzgebel, a professor of philosophy at University of California, Riverside, has conducted experiments to investigate how aware we are of things we are not focused on, which echo Jaynes’ view that consciousness is essentially awareness. “It’s not unreasonable to have a view that the only things you’re conscious of are things you are attending to right now,” Schwitzgebel says. “But it’s also reasonable to say that there’s a lot going on in the background and periphery. Behind the focus, you’re having all this experience.” Schwitzgebel says the questions that drove Jaynes are indeed hot topics in psychology and neuroscience. But at the same time, Jaynes’ book remains on the scientific fringe. “It would still be pretty far outside of the mainstream to say that ancient Greeks didn’t have consciousness,” he says.”
********
“Ultimately, the broader questions that Jaynes’ book raised are the same ones that continue to vex neuroscientists and lay people. When and why did we start having this internal narrative? How much of our day-to-day experience occurs unconsciously? What is the line between a conscious and unconscious process? These questions are still open. Perhaps Jaynes’ strange hypotheses will never play a role in answering them. But many people—readers, scientists, and philosophers alike—are grateful he tried.”
...************************* ….
Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy, Offers More On How Earlier People May Not Have Been Conscious, As We Moderns Experience Consciousness.
...************************* ….

… In addition to what we in our modern day, can observe about Consciousness (which is essentially awareness), Veronique Greenwood, echoing Julian Jaynes, also discusses how the facets of consciousness, may have developed, since earliest humans or even precursor primates & humanoids. Clearly, there must have been, shifting balance(s) of the facets of consciousness during biological evolution, history of language development, and concurrent social-cultural evolution.

… From my putting all this together: I’m wondering, if the earliest humans & primates (say 100,000 years ago), inherited, from mammals, some form of “serial imagination”, which we might call “visual thinking”, or “visual planning” => This would be, like a series of silent images, similar as we experience in a dream, or even day-dream. Asperger Syndrome persons are apparently visual thinkers, as is mentioned by above comment of Gina Rex.

… Back at this time, voice sounds & cries, also inherited from mammals, could start the cycle of social learning, in turn driving evolutionary development of language. Language, in turn would help organize ever more complex inter-human activities, and be basic for the formation of complex societies, all of which, clearly would (and did), have a clear survival advantage. So I would say, that to my above mentioned, ~animal-like cries, plus “serial imagination” (which earliest people surely had available), we can now add socially highly developed linguistic abilities. This would tend, to move early humans ever more toward conscious awareness, as we know it. This my here suggested sequence, would be in agreement with Jaynes’, hallucinated language commands from the Gods, going from one hemisphere to the other.

… But, as discussed by Jaynes, the hearing the commands of the Gods, underwent various trends tending to erode them away. As I remember in this regard, Jaynes attributed this erosion to the effects of ever advancing civilization, commerce, large cities, etc. But if I recall rightly, he does not specifically discuss the role of writing, which includes, literature, mathematics etc, These writings, can add to what Jaynes discusses, and can help push early civilized persons, to the more sophisticated understanding, that the “hearing of voices”, comes merely from within each person, and is not “from the Gods”!! Thus, as Jaynes says, the “hearing of voices”, becomes limited to an ever smaller portion of the population. With advancing civilization, most persons come to realize that, such voices as their own (now conscious!), internal thinking, imagining, imagination etc. As Jaynes says, with such understanding, the “hearing of voices”, has reduced occasions for persons to see others experiencing “the hearing voices’, and with general loss of social support, the whole experience disappears from society. Hence moving this “voices” phenomenon ever closer to modern experience of consciousness: Thus the society around us, where only poets (and music composers), may talk about their creative efforts, being, dictated by Their Friendly Muse!!

SIDE NOTE CONCERNING THE ABOVE:: In our modern times, it regularly happens that there are persons who do hear (and feel a compulsion to follow), hallucinated language commands: And most people have had experiences close to this, even if just imagined. For example: Think how we can wake up, all in a sweat, from commands have dreamed, wherein we’ve felt compelled to do, but embarrassed, because we keep making error, after endless error, attempting to do as commanded. Such a dream experience (as I repeatedly have), is not a whole lot different, from Jaynes’, “hearing of voices”!! At the very least this shows our brain can actually do, what Jaynes is telling us!!
NOTE: To read more about Julian Jaynes’ and his work, please scroll down, many places, to … Jaynes below.

LIKE A SPARKLING DIAMOND The Wonderful, Wondrous, Gift Of Consciousness, HAS MANY SHINING FACETS!!

I’ve Come To Realize Several Examples, Of How Different “Levels of Consciousness”, Can Be Experienced In Ourselves. These Examples Helo Us Understand, Just What Consciousness Is.

Example # 1:
There is the ability to function on “auto-pilot”: Tired, late at night, when
we’re on endless stretch of interstate, we perhaps fall asleep, but something
causes to jerk back awake: Only then, may we realize we have driven many-a-mile,
with absolutely no memory of it, and clearly, we were unconscious the whole
time!! But, just as clearly we were seeing the road, steering the car, and
other needed actions, without consciousness!!

Example # 2:
Similarly, we as experience car drivers, may engage with other persons in a very lively conversation, and during this time have absolutely no memory of seeing the road, steering the car, and other needed actions. We were “driving” with-out consciousness of it, and even may forget a planned travel stop or road change!!

Example # 3:
Similar to #2, lots of other things in our lives happen “mindlessly”, on “auto-pilot”, & otherwise “mindlessly done through habit”, We “drop attention” to who or where we are, as we unawares, just go through the motions. Possibly our “un-awares”, is because our mind is on something else, such as #2, .

Example # 4:
Similarly, there can be times when we are quietly leaning back to listen to good music, or relaxing, sitting alone, watching, say a sunset. We can drift off into a reverie, with no conscious thought, or awareness of who we are or where we are. Pure, Total Experiential Involvement, But Unconscious Of self!! We are “In Being” … “Just There”! …. Just immersed the ongoing good music, or captured by the visual sunset scenery: But we are barely aware of these per se, or even ourselves in the act. We’ve out of time, NOT even day-dreaming, although day dreaming is similar.

Example # 5:
I was avidly watching the marvel of two humming birds spar & joust at a sugar water
feeder, can take us out of self-awareness/ Thus, as an observed fact, ANY close attending can take us “out of ourselves”, and out of what is understood or defined as self-aware consciousness. We have no awareness, that we are (or have been) in these kinds of UN–conscious states, until we “snap-out-of-it”, and consciousness (of ourselves doing the watching), “arrives” back again.

Example # 6:
Day-Dreaming, is similar to the above, in that we have dropped out of self-awareness of, who we are, or where we are. To this extent we are in a form of UN-conscious.

SUMMARY:
We see in these examples, we can drop out of self-awareness conscious, into a “mental state” which must be similar to Jaynes’ Bicameral Mind, which seems to be permanently unaware of their own mind. … And if disturbed, our self-awareness consciousness can “arrive” back again. Without our control (or even knowing it), consciousness can come and go, on its own terms

EXTENSION
… There is ANOTHER type of Conscious Awareness, that comes and goes, on its own terms, which is not much mentioned by you-all [in email] or Jaynes: This is the group of automatic, spontaneous Problem Solving Brain Solutions, that come into Conscious Mind, that I call “Mental Arrivals”
… Here Are Some Examples: Eureka, Flash of Insight, Insight, It dawned on me, A light bulb turns on, Light bulb (as in cartoons). AHA, Lightning bolt out of the blue, Zeus, Epiphany, The light came: I got illumination, Day Light!!, Suddenly the Light of Day Hits Me, and many more.
… Such Mental Arrivals,. typically happen to a person already in consciousness (in Henry Gurr’s various discussions), called Primary Consciousness), but there is suddenly ADDED, consciously aware information, realizations, or knowledge. As a class, these “Mental Arrivals to conscious awareness”, may be best understood as solutions to preexisting problems, which our brain on-automatic, finds good answers (solutions to a problem), and then makes us consciously aware of these solutions.
… Sometimes such solutions, are most excellent, resulting in joy & laughter, with feelings of success & exhalation! WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IS THIS =>
… Almost the same as consciousness itself, these solutions, “just arrive”, without our control or even knowing they are eminent! And unless these solutions are attended to and written down, they can drop out of awareness. So what I call Mental Arrivals, like consciousness, can come and go, on their own terms.

A SUMMARY LISTING OF INCREASING LEVELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS!! These Examples Helo Us Understand, Just What Consciousness Is.
…….. Henry Gurr’s Private Conclusions and Hypothesis.
1) UN-Conscious (Sleep, Anesthesia (Medical, Vegetative, Etc), Severe Concussion, Shock.)
2) Dream Consciousness (Body muscles incapacitated, but otherwise brain active as if awake)
3) Halfway Consciousness (Transition From Sleep To Fully Awake & Conversely)
4) Reverie Consciousness (State Of Pure Rapture: Pure Being. Devoid of Awareness of Space & Time.)
5) Day Dream Consciousness (Like 4) above, but adds “serial imagination” ~= “Visual Thinking”, “Visual Planning”, Etc.)
6) Normal Daytime Awake Consciousness. (Up & Going with Work & Play: If asked, you can say who you are & where, But even this degree of Consciousness, on a second by second basis, is mostly not “in mind”. Thus our awake conscious, may drift in & out of what must be similar to Jaynes’ Bicameral Mind Consciousness!
7) Mental Arrival (An Added) Consciousness (In ADDITION to 6) above, you suddenly, automatically, spontaneously, AHA, are conscious aware of a new idea, solution to problem, or perhaps some other even newer problem!).
8) Flow Consciousness (This Is a Highly Energized & Super Excited State of Being, brilliantly explained by [[Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, in his panoramic & visionary book, “Flow; The Psychology Of Optimal Experience”!! <= Julian Jaynes Enthusiasts should get and seriously read this book. it!!

FINAL SUMMARY:
… We can see from the above “Eight Levels of Consciousness”, that what we call (and define) as consciousness, is a brain activity that “constructs”, our own self-awareness, and with it who we are and where. Like so much of what our brain does to create Mind, this conscious awareness, comes and goes, on its own terms. Effectively, we are by-standers, watching what our brain automatically & spontaneously gives us!!
… While this may be a contradiction of terms, this is what we are left with. Although can try to delve into how it is that our brain can “Make Consciousness”, I don’t think we will ever get much of an answer. But we can observe what our brain actually does, and organize this into a science. Meanwhile we just have to accept that Consciousness is what biological evolution has given-to-us, and just accept what it does!
…Except in the most general terms, how the brain can do this, we will never know.

… ATTENTION: BE NOT TROUBLED THAT => It Is UN-CONSCIOUS Brain Processes That Are Controlling Your Thoughts, And That You Can Barely Control Them.
… It’s the unconscious that’s really in charge." See “Five Characters” in "“Passive Frame Theory,” where you will see provocative ideas that goes like this =>
… “Nearly all of your brain’s work is conducted in different lobes and regions at the unconscious level, completely without your knowledge. When the processing is done and there is a decision to make or a physical act to perform, that very small job is served up to the conscious mind, which executes the work and then flatters itself that it was in charge all the time." In other words, Your Conscious Mind controls FAR LESS Than You Think!
Henry S Gurr Aug 12, 2015 and Dec 14, 2022.

Concerning the Meanings of => PREconscious, SUBconscious, NONconscious, & UNconscious:
… Many Authors tend to use ~= NonConscious & UnConscious interchangeably. But these do have different meanings. Below are the useful definitions from a Psychology Glossary, alleydog.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preconscious

APPENDIX I: In Order To Understand Consciousness, And FOR A PHILOSOPHY & PSYCHOLOGY OF MIND, NOW DISCOVERED: => Needed & Vital Rosetta Stone For “A Theory of “How Our Mind Works”.

**** BASED ON DIRECT OBSERVATION THUS CONCLUDE ****
It Is Useful And Revealing To Consider The Hypothesis, That EVERYTHING Our Brain Does =>
… Is AUTOMATIC, SPONTANEOUS, PROBLEM SOLVING.

A Completely New KIND of Theory of How Our Mind Works, In The Generation, Construction, Creation, Of Conscious Awareness, & Ideas THAT MENTALLY ARRIVE INTO CONSCIOUS MIND.
Henry S Gurr’s “Explanation of How Our Mind Works”.

CONSCIOUSNESS Is a Person’s Single Coherent Unified “Right Now”, View Of World, Created As A Solution To The Problem Of How To Best Respond To Person’s Second By Second, Sensory Input From Surrounding Environment.

…Finding Best (or near Best), Solutions is practically the only way to guide all 5 senses in perception, and to decide and achieve any practical future actions. In support of this we observe:

…These abovementioned “Solutions” Mentally Arrive into CONSCIOUSNESS, from the person’s unconscious brain processes, in the same way (and same brain actions). as for example, what we all experience as the Flash of Insight. These Solutions are Immediate, All At Once, Whole, Complete, Logical, ~Max Coherence, Clear, Understandable, Full Of Meaning (such as in poetry or metaphor), and are remarkably free of contradictions, inconsistencies, errors, non-factual data, and other spurious ideas / conclusions. Note that there is just ONE solution presented to consciousness! Once you think about it, finding a single optimal answer (a solution to problem), is the ONLY way really to do it. There are important functional reasons, why we are totally un-aware of our unconscious brain processes. For a physical biological brain, that the above is at all possible, even indeed thinkable, is factually and mathematically established by the Physics Theory of Princeton Physicist J J Hopfield.

In A Nut Shell: Thinking The UN-Thinkable!!
… A person’s Mental Arrivals most usefully may be considered as, Brain Solutions to Life’s Oncoming Problems, and are chosen on basis of Best (or near Best), Optimal Fit, for what is “There” in the surrounding environment, and what actions (future plan), should be optimally completed. The Optimal Solution, is based on all sensory input up to that current moment, and all memory of similar circumstances, and what was the survival success value of the previous actions, for that and similar circumstances. These solutions only appear in consciousness, when they are of sufficient Quality of Coherence, or said figuratively, have Sufficient Resonance Strength.
… What makes these best & near best solutions possible, is our brains massive computational power, using and supported by massive associative memory, saved from a lifetime of successful sensory perceptual decoding, and successful planned-future-actions. The problem solutions (and concomitant plans plus emotions) are an optimal holistic response to ongoing sensory input integrated with relevant memories, on a weighted basis, how recent, occurrence frequency, salience to circumstance, and survival value.

Bottom Line: The Building Of A Viable Henry S Gurr’s “Explanation of How Our Mind Works”. Must:

Relevant To Consciousness => The page Blue Link below, outlines in 18 Propositions, ideas and emerging conclusions from my 30 years of my study of the consequences of the quite general mental process variously called Flash Of Insight, Sudden Illumination, AHA, Dawning, Lightning Strikes, Zeus, Epiphany ….. which collectively could be called Mental Arrivals Into Consciousness. This includes a unique explanation of

NOTE1: By practical necessity ALL memory MUST be used, in order to determine the meaning of ongoing sensory inputs, and thus be able to decide what parts are most salient: For this reason nothing can be left out, forcing completeness. As always, future-plans are formed, in a large part, from successful previous planned actions. And for these to have actually real-world-worked, indeed forces, & guarantees logical unified wholeness.

NOTE2: … The solutions that appear in consciousness are holistic and unified, by combined necessity that a) Maximum (or near maximum), coherence is practically the only way to define and achieve any practical solution. b) Using optimal (best or near best), automatically means logical, unified, holistic, and similar ways of saying it. c) . d) The fact that a future plans are included, also calls for good logic and math completeness, all for survival: Thus these memories long after their creation, necessarily include how well the body actions, which back then, were evaluated by the then concurrent emotions, actually succeeded in survival values, such as food, procreation, joy, lack of pain, and/or body damage.
… Such remembered sensory inputs, which were in the original actions of perception, when accessed, are then successively adjusted (with weighted strengths), until there is achieved, a “match-up-against”, current split second real world, sensory inputs. The result is ~we perceive what is out there, around us, and even in us.

APPENDIX Ii: The Above Paragraphs Concerning “Needed & Vital Rosetta Stone”, Provide A Foundation For A Scientific Explanation For John Searle’s Conclusions Concerning Consciousness, Such As Stated In His Academy Of Science Article =>

… “When we get to the topic of evolution, we will see the centrality of unity in enabling consciousness to perform its biological functions.”
… “The unified conscious field gives the organism vastly increased power.” … “The organism can coordinate an enormous number of simultaneous inputs within a single conscious field and can coordinate its behavior both in light of the sensory inputs and in light of its goals and the possible means for achieving its goals. It coordinates all of this in a way that simultaneously represents the past in the form of short-term and long-term memory and anticipates the future in the form of its plans, goals, and intentions. In the case of humans, consciousness also gives us the capacity for cooperating with con-specifics; and the specific form that human cooperation takes is the conscious use of language.”

…'' “The conscious mind functions causally in producing behavior, and, in conscious perception, the environment is causally presented to the consciousness of the agent.”
…“For example, in the presence of food, light reflected off the object will cause a conscious visual experience in the animal, and this experience will consciously motivate the animal to move toward the food.” ''
… ”intentionality is the way that the conscious organism has of relating to the environment.”

NOTE1: Such remembered sensory inputs, which were in the original actions of perception, when accessed, are then successively adjusted (with weighted strengths), until there is achieved, a “match-up-against”, current split second real world, sensory inputs. The result is ~we perceive what is out there, around us, and even in us.
NOTE2: Professor Searle’s above statements are partly confirmed by the “Stream Of Consciousness” Section Of This Wikipedia Page. Click Here.

The Above Has Been A Summary Capstone => “The Absolutely Wonderful Gift Of Consciousness” … “What Our Problem Solving Brain Does For Us! …

'You Can Find More About Consciousness In => Henry Gurr’s “Proto-Theory Panorama View Of How Our Mind Works.”

APPENDIX III: THE CONSTRUCTION OF MEANING BY CALCULATION" => Our Problem Solving Brain, Produces, Generates, Creates, Builds, And Yes Constructs Meaning!!

… And This Meaning Is Placed Into A Special "Human Mental Presentation Arena & Theater Stage" Called Herein=> “PRIMARY CONSCIOUSNESS"!
… Where This Is For The Entire And Whole Special Purpose => For Us To Have, Presto, Meaning &The Constructed Surrounded World, Before-Our-Very-Eyes!!

The below is from email interchange between Ken McClure & Henry Gurr.

1) You say: "All calculators about the same" ? Not so fast!! Some calculators are better than others, especially when it comes to brains / minds!!

2) I had MERELY asked what “does the work” of the providing the meaning of a sign, for example!! Or what does the “work” of analogy or metaphor?? BUT ... I'm delighted that you go WAY beyond me, and recognize that " the meaning is encompassed by calculation," !!!! WOW !!!

3) [ But I would add: This "Meaning By Calculation", produces, generates, creates, builds, and YES CONSTRUCTS!! AND THEN => This meaning is placed into this special "human mental presentation arena & theater stage" called => "consciousness", for the entire and whole special purpose => For us to have, face to face, the constructed meaning before-our-very-eyes!! Presto, its there, we "see" the meaning. Yes indeed there is a lot of calculating going on !!! ]]

4) BUT => You managed to miss my big point: I was not worried about the "quality" of the calculator, I was VERY concerned that Philo's and Semiotics Crowd, thought the meaning of the sign (the signified), did NOT have a calculator: It JUST was there!! Which means that the contributions of human brains were completely "Out of Mind", of their mind!!!

Thanks again for all your heavy thinking and words.
********
[HSG said: ]] What I find curious, in ALL of them [Semiotics and Philosopher discussion], is the ABSENCE of any mention of what is it that “does the work” of the providing the meaning of a sign, for example!! Or how does the “work” of analogy or metaphor?? [get done?]
[Ken:] Insofar as the meaning is encompassed by calculation, any old calculating machine will do,
[See my above]

[Ken continue:] Insofar as the meaning is encompassed by calculation, so the absence shouldn't seem curious as far as that goes.
[ Well ... No .... I think there are far better reasons: Please see my pdrevious email, answereing your's. ]

[Ken continue:] Insofar as the meaning is encompassed by calculation, Perhaps it is the original sin of western consciousness to reduce meaning to calculation; to indulge in that sin we must keep any such curiosity at bay.
[ Hmmmm ..... Most certainly the curiosity sems not to have happened !!! ]

[Ken: continue] Insofar as the meaning is encompassed by calculation, If we allow "meaning" to include the field of the organism, then more than calculation must be involved and "meaning" must take into account the satisfaction of the organism. [ YES !!! That is where the Problem Solving Brain, seeking and producing maximal coherence ~= Satisfaction ~= Pirsig's Quality!! ]

If the organism is deemed to have a soul, the field now has a spiritual dimension in a way that makes Owen Barfield smile upon us.
[ Soul is an idea, that long a go was => the Problem Solving Brain, seeking and producing maximal coherence ~= and produced the Spirit Creatures of Original Participation, starting ~ 60,000 years ago. something like 3000 years ago, Soul was invented to cover the Spirit in the individual person: Essentially I'm saying that at first Dawn People had no awareness of themselves, and Soul was the first step this way. The ideas of Soul and Body soon after, and this is the precursor of Damed Descartes Dualism, Mind Body, It's been downhill ever since. ]

[Ken continue:] Insofar as the meaning is encompassed by calculation, How we adjudicate "the meaning of meaning" will probably come down to whether we grant priority to matter or spirit. Perhaps it is a matter of balance.
[ I'm glad you admit both, and this fits what you have said similar to this previous. ]

[Ken continue:] It is hard to do justice to both,
[ We MUST do justice to BOTH!! ]

[Ken continue:] Insofar as the meaning is encompassed by calculation, but in being put on earth a little space to learn to bear the beams of love, that is one of the difficult things we must try to do.
[Agreed ... and pleas help me to do this \!! ]

[Ken continue:] Still too busy to do justice to your epistles but grateful for them.

……..

APPENDIX IV: SUBJECT: THOUGHT AND THINKING IN EARLIEST ANTIQUITY.

EVIDENCE OF EARLY CONSCIOUSNESS (OR THE LACK OF SUCH) IN EARLY LITERATURE, SUCH AS “THE EPIC OF GILGAMESH”.
A VERY LONG series of Emails to Henry Gurr from Stan Levine and Kenneth McClure Oct, 2014.
Concerning WebPage
: https://uruk-warka.dk/Gilgamish/The%20Epic%20of%20Gilgamesh.pdf

Henry,

As I recall you were interested in the development of the thought process in humans as reflected in ancient literature.

The following passages are excerpted from the oldest major work of literature to have survived until our day. It was composed sometime around the 13th-10th century BCE [we can date a written text approximately because languages evolve and are eventually replaced by others], and incorporated parts that were written still earlier. (By comparison, most scholars date Homer to only the mid-8th century.) In both Gilgamesh and Homer, the text as we have it in its final written form is the result, scholars surmise, of long centuries of previous literary development which have not survived, probably because they were never written down but rather recited in formal readings, accompanied by a musical instrument; based on the performer’s long training he is able to recite the epic without written support, passing it down from one generation to the next, and even to improvise keeping the same meter, for example to add details relevant to his own time. That theory is based largely on observations of living bards in places where long oral epics are still recited (or were in the early 20th century when the theory arose), e.g. in Yugoslavia, Kirgizstan, Ireland. Although we would like to know more about the history and context of Gilgamesh, what is absolutely certain is that we have the text itself, since it was preserved on baked clay [‘cuneiform’] tablets and thus survived in the dry and arid environment of Babylonia.

How many equally brilliant literary and artistic cultures are unknown because they were recorded on material supports which frittered away over time? I think it is the Germanic peoples who wrote their literature on “paper” consisting of the bark of trees, and so we have little to no idea what their culture was like before the arrival of the Romans in Germany. Another example: Greek painting was very highly prized throughout the ancient world, but today we can only read about it; we look at their sculpture and architecture, but paintings - on wood - rotted away and disappeared. We do have Greek ornamental art, painting on vases, which was preserved by firing. And we have mosaics. But neither of these supports allows for the artistic finesse that painting can reach. I wonder how many Renaissance paintings by Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Botticelli, etc., we could still appreciate, after only 500 years, were it not for the development of a modern science of preservation and restoration of artworks.

Let me know if this is what you are looking for and if so what you think of it.

Stan Levine’s Explanation Concerning The Following: Series Of Phrases From Gilgamesh
…Three dots in parentheses signifies my elisions; square brackets and italics are in the text I am copying from. The brackets usually indicates that the words there were not in the tablet used as a base for this translation, but were supplied either by repetition of the same line elsewhere in the poem, or by comparison with other copies of the same work. But I am just guessing, since I rec’d this text without the introduction or any commentary. It is taken from a book entitled: The Epic of Gilgamesh: the Babylonian Epic Poem and Other Texts in Akkadian and Sumerian, tr. and intro by Andrew George.
……..

“talking to herself she spoke a word,

“’For sure this man is a hunter (…)

Thus the tavern-keeper saw him, and barred her gate,

******

“Said [the tavern-keeper to him,] to Gilgamesh:

(…) ‘[why are your] cheeks [so hollow.] your face so sunken,

[Why] in your heart [does sorrow reside,]

Tablet X, lines 35 - 43

******

[Said Gilgamesh to her,] the tavern keeper:

‘[Should not sorrow reside in my heart,]

(…) ‘[My friend Enkidu, whom I loved so dear,]

[the doom of mortals overtook him.]

[I did not surrender his body for burial,]

[The I was afraid that I too would die,]

(…) How can I keep silent?] How can I stay quiet?

[My friend, whom I loved, has turned] to clay,

My friend Enkidu, who I loved, has [turned to clay.]

[never] to rise again, through all eternity?’

Tablet X, lines 46 – 71
……..
Stan Levine attached a Gilg X 11-12.pdf Which Was This Complete Modern Version Of This Epic OF Gilgamesh, Which Google Finds Closest Match Here.
……..

Stan Levin Continues Thoughts About The Epic Of Gilgamesh:
… What strikes me on reading the above passages, is that the thought process some 3 millennia ago is described in some detail. In the first passage, the protagonist is analyzing the situation, deciding it may be dangerous, and taking evasive action. Note the expression “talking to herself” and “taking counsel in her own mind.” -- The 2nd passage demonstrates use of formal logic “If you did X [had a great victory], then you should be Y [happy]. But you are not Y.” – a form of the standard syllogism “If A, then B.”

… The third passage points out the flaw in this syllogism, that it does not take into account all the variables, in this case ‘I am crushed despite my victory, because a stronger motive overpowered this one, i.e. that my dear friend died, and so it is logical that I should be sad.’

… In addition, he expresses his consciousness (and fear) of death. (A possible parallel in the Hebrew Bible, where Adam and Eve were unaware of mortality until they ate of the forbidden fruit and God made them, and all humans, destined to die. The approach is very different, but in both cases we see the transition, which reflects a transition which each individual human being makes in his own life, from a youthful sense of the unlimited power of life, to an awareness of one’s mortality.
******

For Some Background: The Wikipedia Article On This Gilgamesh Epic Poem Begins With The Following Excerpt => :
…”The Epic of Gilgamesh, an epic poem from Mesopotamia, is considered the world's first truly great work of literature. The literary history of Gilgamesh begins with five Sumerian poems about 'Bilgamesh' (Sumerian for 'Gilgamesh'), king of Uruk. These independent stories were used as source material for a combined epic. The first surviving version of this combined epic, known as the "Old Babylonian" version, dates to the 18th century BC and is titled after its incipit, Shūtur eli sharrī ("Surpassing All Other Kings"). Only a few tablets of it have survived. The later "Standard" version dates from the 13th to the 10th centuries BC and bears the incipit Sha naqba īmuru("He who Saw the Deep", in modern terms: "He who Sees the Unknown"). Approximately two thirds of this longer, twelve-tablet version have been recovered. Some of the best copies were discovered in the library ruins of the 7th-century BC Assyrian king Ashurbanipal. “
END Excerpt.
******

Henry Gurr Replies Back To Stan Levin, Re The Epic Of Gilgamesh:

Stan
… Yes! I'm VERY interested in earlier peoples, such as is also found Julian Jaynes " The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, " (highly recommended): This is an especially fascinating, and in the approximate same direction as Owen Barfield's “Original Participation World View Of Earlier People” : in his books => "Poetic Diction" and "Saving the Appearances" . BOTH are highly recommended. (More about this 4 inches below.)
… And, to me, the Gilgamesh poem seems as if written yesterday, unless the translators have been putting in too much of their own 20th-century selves into the words. !! ??? !!
… Julian Jaynes speaks much of this same time era and part of the world.Please Have A Look At This In Wikipedia, Which Says “This book addresses the problematic nature of consciousness – “the ability to introspect” – which in Jaynes’ view must be distinguished from sensory awareness and other processes of cognition. “
… The Gilgamesh poem curiously has, to the untrained eye, not much hint of Owen Barfield's Ancient System of “Original Participation World View Of Earlier People”: For Those Earlier People, What Was Really There”, & How To Achieve “A Correct Understanding”, Concerning, The “Gods & Goddesses”, of The World View of Ancient Myth. “
…First: You Need To Be Absolutely Convinced How HUGE Is This World Of Ancient Myth. You Can Just Google To Find Thousands, “Mythical Gods & Goddess ”!!

Sincerely

Henry
……..

Stan Levine Replies To Henry Gurr’s Above Comments:

but just a quick note to alert you that I don’t understand some of your comments, such as the last line. In the previous line, what do I look for in Wikipedia? I assume Jaynes?
… As for the translation, no translation is ever quite the equivalent of the original, especially a literary translation where language is used more suggestively and hence ambiguously. The problem is only worse when the culture that produced the text is very different from that of the translator and his language. This same principle goes in spades for anyone who ventures to read the mind of a person from a very different culture, especially a vanished culture where there is no living native who can verify the accuracy of the interpretation.
… Nonetheless, people continue to feel rewarded for the effort of reading texts from very different cultures: Shakespeare, Dante, Cervantes, Homer, the Bible to name just a few.
… PS – In all these cases we cannot be sure how accurate the translation is. This is equally true for Shakespeare, since the English he wrote in was quite different from what we speak today, and even the literal meaning of many words has changed, not to speak of their associations, connotations, emotional resonance, and context (the implicit reference to other contemporary uses of the word by other authors, bards, singers…). It is compounded in a work like Gilgamesh since few can read the languages it was written in, and only a handful can do so fluently – and among that handful there are often significant differences. Add to that our almost complete ignorance of customs, folklore, ceremony and religious principles – often all we know is what we read in the text, which makes the process completely circular.
… Nonetheless, despite all these seemingly unsurmountable obstacles, we can read the texts and we can attain the conviction that we understand something of what they say. Homer’s lesson about life, death, ambition, pride, etc. can reach us through all these filters. Of course there is no way to prove that our understanding of his words corresponds to that of his contemporaries, or to his own intentions – to the extent that he was aware of them himself, because authors do not necessarily think like (the common view of) scientists, many write with their gut which they allow to dominate their intellect.
… Gotta go. Nice talking, but I have already spent more time than I had. Up late again tonight!!!
Stan
……..

Below Ken McClue Mentions Owen Barfield and Walter Ong: Concerning These Henry Gurr Add =>

A) The Rediscovery of Meaning, and Other Essays by Owen Barfield (Author )
'The Rediscovery of Meaning' is a collection of essays about language, imagination, the human being, society and God. In each, Barfield points to solutions to the modern-day experience of meaningless fragmentation. This book includes some of Barfield's most brilliant, most readable, and most profound pieces. Among them are 'Poetic Diction and Legal Fiction', 'The Harp and the Camera', 'Matter, Imagination and Spirit', and 'Philology and the Incarnation'.
Click Here For Amazon,com’s Information About Barfield & This Book. AFTE This WebPage Comes Up, Scroll down to “Customer Reviews”, to learn more.
NOTE: One of the “Customer Reviews” says => “Barfield shows that the materialists mistakenly reduce things down to what they are, and ignore what they mean. Using linguistic analysis and the careful logic of a legal mind, he shows how meaning is a real property of reality, and the best kind of research is that which accounts for both.” Heny Gurr adds this => Yes, with unconscious brain processes, Mentally Arriving in our mind, MEANING is automatically spontaneously Generated, Constructed Created, into practically our every thought,

B) Wikipedia says => 'Primary orality' refers to thought and its verbal expression within cultures "totally untouched by any knowledge of writing or print."[4] Ong argues that the immediacy of sound, and the longevity of writing, correspond to the intrinsically different ways in which oral and literate societies and people function.
Click Here For Full Wikipedia Article Which Explains Walter Ong’s Conclusions on “Orality”.
……..

Kenneth McClure, Having Read Stan Levine’s Above Thoughts, Adds The Following:

Dear Henry,

1) I contend that Owen Barfield and Walter Ong are telling very much the same story about the evolution of consciousness. It doesn't seem that they conspired together; I'm not sure they were even aware of each other's work. They were, in any case, each aware of Jaynes's "Bicameral Mind" and had much the same thing to say about it. They highly praised the evidence Jaynes posits but disputed the conclusion he draws from it. They attribute the development of consciousness in question less to physiological and more to cultural (and, ultimately, spiritual) causes.
(I suspect you will want citations and I don't have them at hand. For Owen Barfield, I'd start to look in “The Rediscovery of Meaning:; or Walter Ong, in his book “Orality and Literacy”. )
2) Your reference to Gilgamesh "as if it were written yesterday" raises a problem that we face whenever we are moved by epic poetry that was "written" in an oral matrix: It shouldn't be moving us. The limitations of the oral culture should disallow the kind of creation of literature that literate folk value. The critical and pattern-imposing intelligence we prize should not be at work then; yet it seems to be. In the case of Homer, for instance, some people suggest that when the oral epics were written down, the resources of literate consciousness came to the fore and served to shape the work. But I think we have to admit that -- however we account for it -- such resources are at work in the collective consciousness of oral cultures. How else can we be held as spellbound by Homer as we are by Joyce? Here, as apparently everywhere, Barfield has some light to cast. But this is a really long discussion.
3) I just glanced at Stan Levine's email; It deserves to be savored and pondered. However, it does seem to detect a similarity between oral and literate consciousness. That might help answer the question. And it may be presupposed in any case. However differently time may shape us, we are similarly incarnate conscious spirit, floundering with our mortality in a single dance of being.
Hasta, Ken

NOTE: HSG response to Stan Levine's most recent reply this thread, is below: Placed in this order, because it has very lengthy C&P, from Amazon.com.
***********************************

Ken
Thanks for your most recent added thoughts, to this thread!! Excellent!!
Below, please find, my response below, where I have ADDED MY THOUGHTS in [brackets] .

**** Ken McClure Excerpts, with HSG comments in [ brackets] & underline ****
2) Your reference to Gilgamesh "as if it were written yesterday" raises a problem that we face whenever we are moved by epic poetry that was "written" in an oral matrix: It shouldn't be moving us. [ Yes !! ] The limitations of the oral culture should disallow the kind of creation of literature that literate folk value. [ Yes !! ] The critical and pattern-imposing intelligence we prize, should not be at work back then; yet it seems to be. [ Yes !! ] In the case of Homer, for instance, some people suggest that when the oral epics were written down, the resources of literate consciousness came to the fore and served to shape the work. [ Yes !! <= And concerning this, see my hypothesis below: ] But I think we have to admit that -- however we account for it -- such resources are at work in the collective consciousness of oral cultures. How else can we be held as spellbound by Homer as we are by Joyce? Here, as apparently everywhere, Barfield has some light to cast. [ Yes !! But I’m a little surprised you don’t come down hard on how Barfield says that our ability to understand different cultures (or times), than our own, is severely limited, approaching impossible, even if we “Use our Imagination!!!” Ditto for language translators, for Non-Indo-European Languages. I’m aware of the fact that Barfield is the distinct minority here. Even my David does not see such a limitation, mentioning, Gilgamesh, Greek Plays, and Japanese Plays, as examples. He adds: Surly the great feelings, engendered is proof that we DO understand, This position ~matches, Ken & Stan ] But this is a really long discussion. [ Yes !! ]
3) I just glanced at Stan Levine's email; it deserves to be savored and pondered. However, it does seem to detect a similarity between oral and literate consciousness. That might help answer the question. [Yes !! See my below: ]
8) And it may be presupposed in any case. However differently time may shape us, we are similarly incarnate conscious spirit, floundering with our mortality in a single dance of being. [ Yes !! ]

Henry Gurr’s Continued Thoughts Concerning Ken’s Emai:
1) If we believe Jaynes, then pre-literate cultures were ~Unconscious. Or at the very least were ?very? little aware of their own volition, and were largely responding to Participatory Voices. And perhaps when the likes of the Bard Homer recited, they may have been in an ~un or semi conscious trance, and perhaps also their audience. Jaynes, points to, for example, the Oracle of Delphi, and similar inducing trances, with chemical means, etc, to then “Speak In Voices”.
2) But as we know, we ourselves, shift between somewhat mindless minutes, while driving or drifting into various sorts of reverie (day-dreaming), falling asleep / waking up etc. These are pretty much indistinguishable from “unconscious”. So for us literate souls, we are say ~98% conscious and ~2% UN, I might propose that for preliterate, the reverse of these proportions. And, during the ~4000 years of evolution of consciousness, we (humanity) went from ~2% Conscious to ~98% conscious. This nicely coincides , with the onslaught of civilization and literacy. I submit one was causal of the other!! (Does this fit Walter Ong’s book “Orality and Literacy”. “?)]
NOTE: To read more about Walter Ong;s Conclusions, scroll to “Walter Ong” above.

Henry Gurr’s Continued Thoughts Concerning Ken’s Email:
3) Don’t we know for certain, that the oral recitations, and other preliterate “knowledge”, were ONLY written down, when It was belatedly realize these must written down, because these & other oral culture was about to be totally lost!!
4) And the specific reason for this condition was that civilization & writing had been around long enough, to have been clearly in the advanced stage of eliminating the oral ways. So the writers, who could both realize the need and could write the Epics down, were more like us than not!! So being in the ‘modern”, themselves, could read into the Recitation, what we would do!!! ((Or course this does not apply to clay tablets, or other preserved archeological artifacts, that come to us ~ directly. )) What think yea??
5) “The problem is only worse when the culture that produced the text is very different from that of the translator and his legend. This same principle goes in spades for anyone who ventures to read the mind of a person from a very different culture, especially a vanished culture where there is no living native who can verify the accuracy of the interpretation. ...
6) Nonetheless, people continue to feel rewarded for the effort of reading texts from very different cultures: Shakespeare, Dante, Cervantes, Homer, the Bible to name just a few.
7) Add to that, is our almost complete ignorance of customs, folklore, ceremony, and religious principles – often all we know is what we read into the text, which makes the process completely circular. Nonetheless, despite all these seemingly unsurmountable obstacles, we can read the texts and we can attain the conviction that we understand something of what they say. Homer’s lesson about life, death, ambition, pride, etc. can reach us through all these filters. Of course, there is no way to prove that our understanding of his words corresponds to that of his contemporaries, or to his own intentions – to the extent that he was aware of them himself, because authors do not necessarily think like (the common view of) scientists, many write with their gut which they allow to dominate their intellect. ... “
……..

After Henry Gurr’s Above Thoughts Concerning Ken’s Email, Henry Then Sends to Following To Stan Levine:

Stan

I totally agree with your email which stats with “I have no time right now”, . And like you say, Owen Barfield, also says how he so much enjoys those marvelous old literatures!!!

But he is nevertheless, WAY more forceful than you, at how moderns (even master experts), erroneously “read modern concepts into", these artifacts of vanished civilizations.

Barfield extensively discusses how experts missed what he calls Participation!! This is one of his big examples!! Anyway his "read into", is such an enormous trap. Circular as you correctly emphasize & say!!

PS: Related to this "read into", is how words themselves shape & limit, what we are aware of (or can think about). as in => Sapir Whorf Hypothesis?

Henry

Stan Asks Henry For Clarification Re What To See In Wikipedia Re Julian Jaynes' Book: Henry Replied As Follows =>

I expected, (apparently erroneously), that you Stan would be so fascinated, that you would rush out and get Julian Jaynes' Book, at your local library. AND of course, equally fascinated re Barfield, also bring home his "Poetic Diction", and "Saving the Appearances". !!

However: In looking at Wikipedia. I see the requisite excitement statements are not really that obvious. ..But instead Wikipedia is very cautious saying this =>
…"Jaynes' definition of [what we moderns simply call] consciousness is synonymous with what philosophers call "meta-consciousness" or "meta-awareness", i.e., awareness of awareness, thoughts about thinking, desires about desires, beliefs about beliefs. This form of reflection is also distinct from the kinds of "deliberations" seen in other higher animals such as crows insofar as it is dependent on linguistic cognition.”
…“Jaynes wrote that ancient humans before roughly 1000BC were not reflectively meta-conscious and operated by means of automatic, nonconscious habit-schemas. Instead of having meta-consciousness, these humans were constituted by what Jaynes calls the "bicameral mind". For bicameral humans, when habit did not suffice to handle novel stimuli and stress rose at the moment of decision, neural activity in the "dominant" (left) hemisphere was modulated by auditory verbal hallucinations originating in the so-called "silent" (right) hemisphere (particularly the right temporal cortex), which were heard as the voice of a chieftain or god and immediately obeyed.”
…“Jaynes wrote, "[For bicameral humans], volition came as a voice that was in the nature of a neurological command, in which the command and the action were not separated, in which to hear was to obey."[2] Jaynes argued that the change from bicamerality to consciousness (linguistic meta-cognition) occurred over a period of ten centuries beginning around 1800 BC. The selection pressure for Jaynesian consciousness as a means for cognitive control is due, in part, to chaotic social disorganizations and the development of new methods of behavioral control such as writing."
Above from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)
… ….
In My Own Henry Gurr Opinion => If only 10 % of Julian Haynes’ ideas were to be ultimately proven correct, this would qualify him for the Ancient History Research Hall of Fame !!

!!APPENDIX V: EDITORIAL & AMAZON READER REVIEWS OF => The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, by Julian Jaynes.

A) From The New Yorker
…"When Julian Jaynes . . . speculates that until late in the twentieth millennium b.c. men had no consciousness but were automatically obeying the voices of the gods, we are astounded but compelled to follow this remarkable thesis."
-- John Updike The New Yorker

B) Below Are Three Reader Reviews From http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072
……..

1) By James Frohnhofer on January 3, 2000
… Why is it that the characters in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Iliad and the oldest books of the Bible behave in a manner that seems utterly alien to modern readers, but by the time of the New Testament and the classic Greek dramatists charcters seem to have the same feelings and motivations of modern man? Jaynes addresses this question, among others, in one of the most thought provoking books I've read.
Basically, he posits that lacking full consciousness (yet having language), prehistoric man's actions were often governed by voices, which are in many ways similar to certain forms of schizophrenia. His full argument is much deeper and far more subtle than I can deliver in a one-line synopsis.
… The book is not a drum-beating New Age manual for making peace with our proto-selves, although many readers seem to have taken just that away from his discussion on the origins of religion.
The thesis is, of course, utterly unproveable, and both orthodox classicists and anthropologists are at odds with it. But it is remarkable in its originality. One needn't be convinced by the book to enjoy it; read it purely for Jayne's breadth of knowledge and his originality of thought and it will be well worth your time.
……..

2) A paradigm-buster par excellence.
By Timothy Dougal on June 11, 2001 Format: Paperback
… It's hard to describe exactly what this book did to me. Suffice it to say that my views on history, religion, language and consciousness seem to be permanently altered, and my reading and thinking have broadened as a result. Jaynes defines conscousness too narrowly for some philosophers and psychologists, who seem to want it to include all of perception, but for me, his focus on interior dialogue, conceptual space, the notion of self, the ability to narratize and project this self into theoretical situations, is right on target. These are the kinds of things that create our notions of ourselves as human. Considerable space is devoted to anatomy, and split-brain studies, but the bulk of the book relies on archaeology, ancient art, ancient texts, and their use of language. This is the thrust of Jaynes' argument: consciousness arose only relatively late in human development, appearing first in the Middle East at the end of the second millennium BCE., and this consciousness was dependent on language. He theorizes that the right hemisphere of the brain was specialized to recall long term information, as the left was (and still is, in most people) specialized for language. Pre-conscious people, he contends, hallucinated instructions of a super-ego-like nature generated in the right brain. In the simplest, small scale, early societies, these hallucinations were attributed to ancestors, chiefs, or kings. Eventually they were attributed to gods. As societies became increasingly complex, personal hallucination as a guiding force in life declined in value, and modern consciousness was born. To make his case, Gilgamesh, the Iliad, the Odyssey, Hesiod, and the Bible are examined, ancient carvings and burial practices are considered, and the evolution of religious practices involving idols, sacrifices, prophecy, omens and divination are all looked at. They give support to Jaynes' contentions and open the mind of the reader. This is a book that keeps on giving.
67 of 71 people found the following review helpful

3) Patience, Pease.
By Christopher D. Schoen on December 18, 2005 Format: Paperback
… What high standards we have for Julian Jaynes. We ask that he be more revolutionary than Copernicus, whose heliocentric theory was wrong in almost every particular except the one that matters; more consistent than Darwin, who advocated many of the Lamarckian principles that are now considered anathemic to his theory; more positivist than Freud, who despite being just as "unfalsifiable" today as he was 100 years ago is universally considered to have redefined our understanding of the self.
… Whatever Jaynes may have gotten wrong, his insights into the problems posed by consciousness, the self, and political evolution seem more giant each time I revisit this book. Too few scholars are willing to look at the darker chambers of the human psyche through history, especially the vulnerability of the mind to the "power of suggestion" found in hypnosis and schizophrenia, and the recurring, prominent role of trance in religious ritual. Like Freud, Jaynes reminds us we aren't half as rational and autonomous as we tell ourselves we are (ironically it is the "faith-based" philosophies that seem most threatened by this idea.)
… 150 years ago we bristled at the suggestion that our distant ancestors were apes. Even the "intelligent design" crowd doesn't take issue with this fact today. But to suggest that our ancestors of just 200 generations ago were, by our modern standards, just plain nuts raises all the old hackles. Why? Are we each afraid, at such a small remove, that we might personally revert to our quasi-schizophrenic, bicameral origins? If Jaynes had postulated an origin of consciousness 10 millenia ago instead of 3 would be breathe more easily?
4) [Author Unknown.]
…At the heart of this classic, seminal book is Julian Jaynes's still-controversial thesis that human consciousness did not begin far back in animal evolution but instead is a learned process that came about only three thousand years ago and is still developing. The implications of this revolutionary scientific paradigm extend into virtually every aspect of our psychology, our history and culture, our religion -- and indeed our future.

APPENDIX VI: POET & WRITER, JENNIFER BURD’S MONTHLY BLOG, "METAPHOR AND MORE," Expands Her Teaching Which She Calls "Mastering Metaphor".

Although Only Once Mentioning Consciousness, The Reader Should Nevertheless Be Aware That We “See” The Meaning Of Metaphor In Our Conscious Minds Eye Thru “Gestalt,” Which Is Essentially Another Name For Mental Arrival Into Our Conscious Mind.