While I was thinking more about the notion of a dual self suggested in my last post, it occurred to me that the idea is by no means new. In fact, it has proven curiously persistent, as this summary from Peter Novak's The Lost Secret of Death makes clear:
The binary soul doctrine is probably as close as the human race has ever come to having a single world religion. Thousands of years ago, people all across the globe believed much the same thing about what happens after death–that human beings possess not one, but two souls, which were in danger of dividing apart from each other when the person died.…
Simultaneously present in numerous cultures at the door of recorded history, the binary soul doctrine may predate all currently known civilizations. This peculiar afterlife tradition not only seems to have saturated the entire Old World at a very early date, appearing in some of the earliest writings of Egypt, Greece, Persia, India, and China, it somehow managed to jump the oceans as well, leaving yet more of its footprints in the cultural traditions of Australia, Hawaii, Alaska, the plains of North America, Mexico, Peru, and even Haiti.
Greece called these two souls the psuche and the thumos; Egypt called them ba and ka; Israel called them ruwach and nephesh; Christianity called them soul and spirit; Persia called them urvan and daena; Islam called them ruh and nafs; India the atman and jiva; China the hun and po; Haiti the gros bon ange and ti bon ange; Hawaii the uhane and unihipili, and the Dakota Indians called them the nagi and niya. The list goes on. [pp.1, 2]
Some of the entries in this list can be disputed. For instance, the ancient Egyptians divided the soul into more than two parts, so it is not strictly correct to say they subscribed to a binary soul doctrine. Still, it is true that they did distinguish between the ba, which seems to correspond roughly to the modern idea of personality, and the ka, the source of intellectual, spiritual, and creative power.
Many cultures had a tripartite, rather than binary, conception of the human being. The Lakota Indians thought there were three elements intertwined in each person: the spirit (nagi), the soul (nagapi), and the totem animal (the source of power). Traditional Hawaiian religion, according to some accounts, divides each person into the unihipili (corresponding roughly to the autonomic nervous system and the unconscious), the uhane (the capacity for rational thought), and the Aumakua (the higher self, the connection to the divine, serving the same function as a guardian angel or spirit guide). Aristotle divided the human being into the vegetative, animal, and rational elements, with only the rational element achieving immortality. Gnostic Christians saw the individual person as consisting of psyche, pneuma, and hyle (the physical body). According to one source,
The psyche (soul) was identified by [Gnostic Christians] with [the] cognitive/emotional aspect of the personality (the ego consciousness). The pneuma (spirit) was identified by them with the intuitive/unconscious level.
The mystical tradition of Kabbalah divides the soul into not three but five parts: nephesh (instinct), ruach (emotion), shamah (intellect), chaya, and yechida. The latter two are aspects of God that are entwined in the human being.
In his fascinating and controversial book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, Princeton psychologist Julian Jaynes argues that duality was part of the human condition from the start. The Wikipedia entry on Jaynes aptly summarizes his view:
Jaynes defines "consciousness" more narrowly than most philosophers. Jaynes' definition of 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 Jaynesian consciousness is dependent on linguistic cognition.
Jaynes wrote that ancient humans before roughly 1200 BC 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 cites many ancient texts in support of his thesis. One of them, the Egyptian text “The Dispute between a Man and his Ba," narrates an argument between a man's intellect and his lower self. Here are some excerpts from an online summary
The man wants to end his life. His Ba tries to dissuade him. The Ba threatens to leave the man and probably cries out the man will have to answer for the offense of taking his own life....
Apparently, the man does not wish to end his life without the approval of his Ba. He realizes that without his Ba he will be lost in the afterlife (total annihilation) and so he tries to persuade his Ba to participate in his auto-destructive sacrificial act, for he does envisage immortal bliss & resurrection ! So this is a man who knows about the afterlife and the deities and who nevertheless wants to end his life himself but not without the help of his own Ba ! Because his Ba does not want to cooperate, he reminds it that it is obliged to assist him....
The Ba succinctly replies that the man should be ashamed of himself and stop complaining. Who is he to utter these words and think these thoughts ? Is he not of modest origins ?
This admonition was of no help at all. But the man is reluctant to die if his Ba is left behind. For if left on earth, his Ba would die too and this would imply total annihilation (physical as well as spiritual). This the man does not seek. He needs his Ba to rise so as to become a god in the afterlife. He wants his Ba to assist him and pleads to it by saying he will make a splendid mortuary temple and his children will present offerings. He turns the argument around, and tries to reason his Ba by saying it will not find peace if it accepts the man should die without it being around ... He is very aware all his efforts are in vain, for his Ba will never help him with anything else than the just course of events. To die before death comes is rejected by the Ba.
Whatever we may think of the neurological and psychological details of Jaynes' theory, material like this suggests that duality (or multiplicity) of the self was taken for granted in ancient Egypt and, it appears, in many other cultures as well. The persistence of this notion may simply reflect the inner conflicts that afflict all human beings - reason vs. emotion, self-interest vs. duty, conscious intentions vs. unconscious motives, etc. On the other hand, it's possible that the division of the soul into two or more parts was a popular idea because it reflected a metaphysical truth.
Who can say for sure? Certainly not me, myself, or I.
Marja's informative comment from the previous thread is also relevant here:
"I'm currently reading Claude Lecouteux's 'Witches, werewolves and fairies, shapeshifters and astral doubles in the middle ages'. His claim is that before Christianity people of Europe generally believed that humans had three spirits or souls, one of which was something like a tutelary spirit, or later the guardian angel, one which could travel outside of the body and was what people saw when they saw something like a werewolf (although a wolf was only one of the animal forms this soul could take) and which would sometimes manifest without the owner's conscious will but which shamans and some other people could use at will, and the third soul which was bound to the bones and existed after death as long as the bones lasted. And that these pagan beliefs lasted well into medieval times, and in some forms and areas even later, even though Christian clergy did their best to eradicate them, mostly by usually interpreting what before was thought to be one or other of the souls of some human as either angels or demons - most often demons."
Posted by: Michael Prescott | December 21, 2011 at 01:37 PM
I think the distinction between 1. spirit 2. soul and 3. personality is a good and important one. Unfortunately, having made the distinction, things seemed to get confused again by lumping spirit and soul and maybe some aspects of personality back into the generic term "soul" as "binary soul doctrine".
I do not think the soul has three, two or any number of parts or divisions. It is a singular thing.
A rough analogy would be a serving of bourbon (my favorite hard drink). In bourbon there is alcohol. That is the spirit (in fact there is a connection in why they call it "spritits"). It is the same spirit that is in rum, vodka, beer, wine, etc. It is the raw essence of the thing and all things alcoholic and, ultimately, what gives them "life".
Then there is the soul. This is what makes bourbon, bourbon and vodka, vodka. It has to do with adding character to the spirit; the processes and raw components, how it was aged, how long it was aged. The process of making bourbon involves at least 51% corn, aging in charred oak barrels, minimal 80 proof, etc. These processes leave an imprint on the spirit.
You cannot have bourbon without the spirit.
The there is the personality. This would be analogous to how how the bourbon is served. Could be a mint julip, could be a bourbon and coke, could be a manhattan........
You can't have personality without first the spirit and then the soul.
Note, however, that the chain of dependency does not operate in reverse. You can have soul without the personality (i.e. you could drink straight bourbon without the rocks). You could forego the bourbon and drink straight spirit (though this would be too strong and would not only be harmful, but also would not have an enjoyable flavor and, therein, lies another aspect of the analogy).
Maybe another way of looking at this is that the soul is the "personality" or first layer of individualized division adopted by spirit in the other dimensions and personality is an expression in the physical realm and cultural/social melieu of the soul.
The goal of most eastern practices, such as buddhism, is to return to spirit; first by erasing the crudest impurities,personality , and then by working off the more subtle flavorings, soul.
"....the spirit (nagi), the soul (nagapi), and the totem animal (the source of power)"
BTW, The totem animal here is another way of talking about the personality. They are equivalent. It is a nature based people's way of understanding and expressing the same sort of thing we do today with phrases like "type A personality", "free spirit", introvert, etc, etc
Posted by: no one | December 21, 2011 at 02:58 PM
I think we need to distinguish between theories of the soul and theories of human psychology. I'm not sure that the quoted material is all in reference to the former. If an ancient people had a theory of the mind having multiple parts, then *automatically* that becomes a kind of theory of the soul, since they all believed in life after death. But that is a little different than proposing a specific theory of a multipart soul. So i think the claim that this was something close to "world religion" is unfounded. That would be like saying that the belief in spirits and life after death was a world religion.
Not to beat a dead horse that had two souls, but I think seeing the soul/spirit as the form/total information content of the animal skirts the issue of the number of souls or psychological parts nicely.
I actually don't believe in the pure unity of the soul, or that it has a particular number of parts. I think it's pretty clear from psychology and our own introspection that we have a lot going on in our minds. Take as a simple example the case of suddenly discovering that a song has been playing in the background of your mind. Or that you've been tensing a muscle out of worry.
Buddhism tends to focus on this disunity and has a bunch of terms relating to it, such as anatta (non-self), sankhara-dukkha (the pain of being composite being), and so on. If I understand correctly, most Buddhist sects do not believe in an immortal soul but instead in multiple "seeds" that inform the new mind after reincarnation.
Freud gave us the id, ego, and super ego. There are modern schools of psychology that focus a great deal on parts of the personality.
Yet, there is also an undeniable unity to us. I find it amazing that we wake up and think of ourselves as the same people every day. Despite things like Alzheimer's that destroy the personality (at least on the surface), we can experience severe brain trauma like concussions and still be the same people we always were. Memory is not easily erased. Personalities do not easily change.
So the mind is exceedingly complex. I think it's a fool's errand to try to think of it as some pure Cartesian substance floating inside the body, or, for that matter, two distinct pieces.
Cheers,
Matt
Posted by: Matt Rouge | December 21, 2011 at 07:33 PM
The soul is the pure conscious awareness.
The spirit is the soul clothed in a spirit body.
The personality is the pattern of behavior and manner of thinking imprinted on the spirit by a lifetime incarnated on earth.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | December 21, 2011 at 07:36 PM
By the way, I neglected to say, Great post! It led me to look up and ponder a few things before I began my blathering. :)
Posted by: Matt Rouge | December 21, 2011 at 07:51 PM
Michael, when you say prior to 1200BC, humans were not reflectively meta-conscious, I think that is a mistake: shouldnt it be 12000BC?
1200BC humans were most certainly reflectively meta-conscious! this is the great era of the Trojan Wars, and the New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, the Hittite empire in the Near East etc!
The various peoples of this age may take issue with someone telling them that they are not reflectively meta-conscious!
Posted by: Douglas | December 22, 2011 at 06:18 AM
PS Also, you can read many ancient texts, including Ancient egyptian 'novels', and of course the great Epic of Gilgamesh, that clearly demonstrate human beings operating just as they do now.
We recognise ourselves in these texts, showing us how human nature is timeless - that is what is so wonderful about these ancient texts - they show us how like us these people were.
Trying to argue that ancient people had some kind of lower order consciousness is just a load of crock. Just what you would expect in a psychology thesis. He is obviously a psychologist, not a historian!
I don't think a people with lower order consciousness could throw up the Great Pyramid (3500BC) and indeed the greatness of Ancient Egyptian civilisation on its own, which lies well before 1200BC, is testament itself to the level of their 'consiousness'.
Posted by: Douglas | December 22, 2011 at 06:27 AM
offtopic http://www.re-quest.net/entertainment/movies-and-tv/tv/john-edward this guy shows john edward is a con-man not a medium at all.
Posted by: unreal | December 22, 2011 at 07:11 AM
Douglas, I'm simply quoting Wiki's description of Jaynes's book, not expressing my own opinion. And yes, Jaynes did hold that self-reflective consciousness originated around 1200 BC. He cites many ancient texts, including the Iliad and Hesiod's Works and Days, in support of this view. Do I agree with him? Probably not, but his book is still worth reading because he was a brilliant and provocative writer.
It may or may not be the case that self-reflective consciousness is necessary to build the pyramids. Is self-reflective consciousness necessary to build an anthill or a beehive? Jaynes argues that consciousness in this special sense is not necessary for a variety of complex tasks, including driving a car and solving math problems. As he puts it rather starkly, consciousness "is not necessary for thinking." Of course he means self-reflective consciousness.
I'm not sure it is true that the characters in the most ancient texts are just like us. In the Iliad, as Jaynes points out, characters are described as experiencing direct interventions by the gods - for instance when Achilles is about to challenge one of the other chieftains, and suddenly a god comes down from heaven to stop him. It's as if the voice of prudent wisdom was externalized and objectified as the direct communication of a god. Was this only a literary device, a poetic trope? Maybe. Or maybe it was a description of how people's minds really worked in that era.
As I say, I'm not sold on Jaynes's theory, but it can't be so easily dismissed. For more, see this post from the earlier iteration of this blog:
http://authormichaelprescott.blogspot.com/2005/03/julian-jaynes.html
Posted by: Michael Prescott | December 22, 2011 at 08:37 AM
I read Jayne's book back in college (i.e., a long time ago). It's a *very* interesting read. In a good way.
I think, however, he proposed too big a leap in evolution over too short a time. IIRC, he also proposed that this change happened all over the world at once, which doesn't seem very realistic.
Posted by: Matt Rouge | December 22, 2011 at 03:06 PM
ok, I was a bit harsh, i read a bit more about his theory and he did his research and worked using a multi-diciplinary approach.
It seems his theory is controversial however, evolutionary biologists are not too keen - Richard Dawkins think his theory is 'probably tosh', although he is 'hedging his bets'.
it's a nice idea actually but i don't think it happened - there isnt a lot of evidence to back it up really. Just because there is no literature in an obviously self-reflective manner prior to 1200bc, that is no real sign that people didnt reflect - it's more likely to do with the fact that the field of 'literature' had not sufficiantly advanced at that time. Most written material from that time was for record keeping.
The epic of gilgamesh is an exception of course, and also blows the non-reflective theory out of the water, unless you argue that the reflective material was added later, as Jaynes does, but that to me does smack of a certain desperation in twisting the evidence to fit the theory.
Remember also that only a *tiny fraction* of ancient written material has survived to the present age, so trying to base a whole theory on the available material is sketchy at best, especially something this outrageous!
There is the old saying that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and i think that applies here.
Posted by: Douglas | December 23, 2011 at 04:52 AM
in these lower worlds man always separates everything to understand it better.i think we re all souo,..one our ego is responsible for our sepatateness.thomas victory
Posted by: thomas victory | January 02, 2012 at 02:36 AM