Andrew Tischler breaks down The Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes Episode #294

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:07):
Welcome back to Mike and Maurice's Mind Escape.
Let us help you escape your mind.

(00:41):
None. All right.
Welcome back to Mike and Maurice's mind escape.
We have episode #294. We're getting close to 300.
Maybe we'll do something special.
We're also coming up on six years here these holidays, too.
That's crazy. Think about.
It's been that long. But yeah, we have a special

(01:03):
episode tonight. I am alive.
Thank you to some people sendingemails.
It's only been a week since our last show, but people knew I had
a nasty, venomous spider bite. It's kind of going away.
And it wasn't a brown recluse, It was this other it was a sack
spider. Either way, this thing is

(01:24):
gnarly. If I put a timeline of like the
progression you'd throw up when it got to the middle when it was
like black and necrotic. Yeah.
So all fun stuff. No, no, but I I, I am a lot
better. Thank you to there's a few
people that sent me emails and stuff.
So tonight we are going to be discussing The Bicameral mind

(01:48):
which is a theory and book by Julian James who was a
psychologist and like he studiedancient psychology too.
And I think what was this written in 69, 70?
76 76 OK, but he started researching it, I think late 60s

(02:10):
I believe. Totally.
Yeah, it took him a long time. But yeah, so we're going to
discuss all that special guest tonight.
Welcome back on the show. It's been years.
Andrew Tischler. If you don't know Andrew, you
can go back and listen to our episodes with him.
We did, I believe one on Rudolf Steiner and I think one on just

(02:33):
philosophy in general, like Plato, Socrates.
That one got kind of screwed up though, so if you go back and
listen to that, there might be like a doubling of my voice,
which sounds terrible, so. Yeah, we did Tom Campbell and we
did the Dunning Kruger. I forgot we did that many too.
We've done, I guess we have done.
I thought we did like two or three, but we must have done

(02:53):
like four. Yeah, we did do Tom Campbell's
theory of everything. Those fans don't like me because
I always point out the lack of inclusion of just at least
having psychedelics in that pantheon of stuff he talks about
in his book. His his followers don't like

(03:15):
that. But but yeah, those were great
episodes actually. And the Dunning Kruger one I
thought was great too. That was before a lot of you
hear people talk about all the time.
Now that was actually, people weren't really talking about it
that much back then. But Oh yeah man, it's good to
have you back on if you don't know who Andrew is to.
He is a very sick, very heady glass blower.

(03:38):
You can check him out at a Tischler glass on Instagram.
You won't be able to really see it, but I have my sweet terp
marble here and here I'll pull up a couple pictures real quick
too of some marbles that he blew.
Again, Hand blown glass. Look at this beauty.

(04:00):
Do you know this one's for sale right now?
Yeah, that one I have on my website.
So, OK, what's your website? You said it.
A tishular glass. OK, gotcha.
And then this beauty too. I love your fractal work.
That's actually, it's two shots of the same marble.

(04:20):
So that's a oh, that's the back end of it.
Yeah. It's oh, OK Gotcha.
Gotcha. Oh, I see.
I see. I see.
I see. Yeah, man.
Yeah, sick. Thank you for.
Showing that and can I take a second to say thank you for
having me on and Congrats on 294episodes and all the success.
It's really cool. Thanks man.

(04:41):
Yeah, I appreciate it. And yeah, we'll have many more
to come as things evolving as aswe are.
So yeah, I don't, I don't know, but yeah, so go check out
Andrew's stuff. I highly recommend it if you
like functional glass, even non functional.
I mean, I guess you could use those marbles for anything, not

(05:02):
just TERP sets. But yeah, that's that's what I'm
using them for anyways. So we're going to talk about the
bicameral. Mind you and I used to go back
and forth a lot more, you know back in the day.
We've obviously things come up, life happens.
But we, you know, you'll send me, you used to send me some

(05:25):
interesting stuff to look into. I would check that out.
I tell you about some stuff and yeah, dude, some of the actually
this stuff that you sent me is stuff that I've really gone deep
into and I I can actually, I canconfidently say that you made me
reassess philosophy. So I went back and you were part

(05:46):
of the catalyst too, of, you know, kind of the show taking
that kind of a turn, if you will.
But I think just having those tools is huge.
But without further ado, let's get into this thing, the
bicameral mind. You said you were reading it.
I'm like, I got to check this out.
People have been telling me to check out this book for years

(06:09):
and this theory. I kind of had an idea of what it
was, but why don't you give me alittle bit of a summary from
your reading it and looking intoit and everything?
Yeah, sure. So I I do think he spent, like
you said, a decade or two thinking about consciousness.
And I think he mentions in the book like spending years

(06:32):
following dead end trails beforehe finally hit upon this theory
that he came up with. He was also a linguist, so he
studied origin of language, I think, probably with like the
intention. Or like with the insight that it
may have something to do with consciousness.
So him knowing so much about early language, I think really

(06:54):
helped him develop the theory the way he did.
But yeah, questions about consciousness.
And I really like the way he breaks down the different views
that we currently have, is that it's either something that is
like a pan psychism, that the whole universe is conscious,
which. You know, we can definitely get
into that as we get into the meaty stuff.

(07:15):
But, you know, the consciousnessstart at the beginning, at The
Big Bang, or did it start with, you know, complicated matter, or
did it start with the first single cell, or is it a complex
nervous system? And to all of our surprise, his
conclusion was actually that none of those things are the
real catalyst and that actually language helped give rise to the

(07:39):
modern kind of consciousness that we have.
Well, let's, let's stop. I want to hold you up right
there because we've talked aboutthat on the show.
Massive, massive point. I don't think people really
think about it that much, but even think about cultures and
and you know, just different languages and how people
interact within those cultures via their own language.

(08:01):
And there's some languages that can't even, they don't even have
descriptions or words for thingsthat other cultures do and stuff
like that. So it has a massive influence on
consciousness, whether it is thecatalyst that changed it along,
kind of like what you're saying or not.
I think that it's it's at least one of the contributing factors

(08:23):
in my opinion. I totally agree.
Yeah. That's well said.
Yeah. So he gets into this thing.
So we've talked a lot about on the show about gods.
Where are these gods? Where did they go?
Who were, you know, like where was this coming from?
So why don't you explain that aspect of it?

(08:47):
Because I think that that's obviously the most important
point or you know, part of the theory.
Yeah. So he picks up the gods kind of
in the middle of his theory, andhe's trying to well, OK.
So I think the origin of the gods would have been like a a
tribal leader. It's like the first God was like

(09:11):
a king of Ur that they find buried with, you know, certain
things. So when the, you know, like if
you imagine ancient hominids andtribal communities listening to
the leader dictating and you know where the leader goes,
everyone follows and there's like he, he kind of describes

(09:33):
just a chain of events that occur that instead of hearing
the leader's voice. When he's alive, you you know
that he argues that you continueto hear the leader's voice after
he dies, and that this leader's voice transforms into the voice
of not just a human leader, but like a leader on high.
And all of a sudden now there's like this transition from a

(09:55):
living human God to like, God removed.
And would you think about that part too, 'cause I thought that
was kind of weird when they weretalking about how people used
to, like, dress and sit dead people at the table and like, so
like that. What you're saying is kind of
the idea that even when they die, they still hear that voice,

(10:17):
so they take care of the body asif it's still alive, which was
kind of a weird thing to think about.
Yeah, because they continue to hallucinate.
So you know, the whole one of the whole idea of that stage is
that they are not introspecting moment to moment about what to
go do that. If they are behaving or acting

(10:40):
in any way, it's as a result of these hallucinated voices, of
the leader telling them what to do.
And it's just that these, these hallucinated voices are ever
present, you know, for these, for this bicameral people, you
know, it's the source of their volition and action.
Yeah, to your point, to the the father, the archetypes, the

(11:02):
father, the mother, gods, goddesses, yeah.
And what does he call it? He calls them like noble cogs or
noble automaton, something like that, where they're just like
they have like good intentions of being a good human being.
However, they don't have, like you just said, like

(11:23):
introspection or something like that.
I I think like you know, as a a metaphor like a beehive or an
Ant colony, you know, where. Why are they so consistent?
Why are they so dedicated to thequeen and to the colony?
And it's because, like radio transmitters, they're constantly
getting signals from the queen herself.

(11:44):
You know, it's a really kind of a 1 to 1 metaphor for the
bicameral society that these, like, rulers are able to just
basically transmit, like, telepathically, you know?
Yeah. Almost like instinctual
commands. Yeah.
So it's like. They're they're moral to a fault
because the volition isn't thereto take them.

(12:08):
Yeah, didn't it? Doesn't it feel like it just it
answers too many questions? Like it just fits.
It's almost like, you know, he'sgot a board and all the strings
of all the mysteries surroundingconsciousness and origins and
stuff, just like it fits, everything fits into place.
So that's why this is a interesting theory and why you

(12:31):
might have people, like, trying poke holes in it.
But there's not like a oh, that's pseudoscience or anything
like that, 'cause it, you reallycan't refute it.
In a way, even people like Daniel Dennett, who's like a
hardcore materialist, says it's like one of the bigger
inspirations for the way he thinks about consciousness and
stuff like that, so. I didn't realize that.
That's awesome. Yeah.

(12:51):
Yeah, his just the analysis on consciousness and what it isn't
and what it is. I think is one of the reasons I
suggested it to you. Like given his theory or not,
just the being, like you said, having that in your toolbox is
pretty powerful. Yeah, I mean, again, I've been
putting it off. I don't know why I did, but

(13:12):
maybe it's things, you know, I think sometimes sometimes that
stuff happens for a reason, likeyou're just into something else
or something else is going on and then it hits you at the
right time and place. Yeah.
IA friend of mine that has also read the book, we like to joke
that James was a academic materialist scholar that

(13:33):
accidentally stumbled upon an esoteric truth about the world.
So his methodology is strictly evolutionary materialist, which
is you know, if you read that inthe in the book, he's not not
broaching the subject of what are the gods except outside of
just neurological kind of stuff.But we, you know, we like to.

(13:57):
I I don't think it's a too far vote.
You can use James's theories andhave them inform more spiritual
worldviews and they just it still fits.
Like you're saying it fits too well.
So I think he he's on to something, but there's
definitely more to the story toothan is in his books, you know?

(14:18):
Yeah, absolutely. The one of the interesting
things to me is he actually usesancient Greece like a lot is
like the backbone the way he describes it.
So he's talking about, like, if you look at, like Solon's
writing, who Solon is one of thegreat, you know, 7 sages of

(14:42):
ancient Greece, and he's saying he's he's like one of the first
conscious or introspective people.
And then you have, like Thales, the first philosophy natural
philosopher. Oh, there's other explanations
then these weird voices we've been hearing forever kind of a
thing. Now thinking about that, though,

(15:06):
do you think that 'cause there'sa lot of stuff 'cause like that
even incorporates the schizophrenia aspect of this,
which is he's saying that that is, or that was like some part
of it, or on some level most people had it or something like
that was the confusing part to me is like, is that kind of the
vibe you got from that or? Well, what he noticed is that

(15:29):
the behavior and like internal experience of schizophrenics is
he. He calls it like a vestige,
which is a fancy word for like aleftover.
So the fact that by the fact that schizophrenics here
interact with and act on the voices in their heads told him

(15:51):
that that is something that's plausible in human nature, you
know, it's it's it's not something we have to imagine
because we have examples of it now.
And, you know, he talks about how even average people
experience voices in like a sortof one to three, one to four
ratio. But most people don't report
them. But like stories of housewives
that have conversations with their dead mothers or

(16:13):
grandmothers as a as a matter ofcourse every morning, but just
wouldn't report it to the husband because of who would
believe them. But when they're asked about it,
they all these stories come out.So.
So schizophrenia for him was like a proof that this is a
possible thing, that human beings have this relationship
with a voice in their head and that the brain can produce
voices and audio hallucinations and visual hallucinations.

(16:34):
And so, yeah, they they wouldn'tbe the ball by camera.
Yeah, go ahead. No, I was just going to say, I
think that even today, we still don't really understand the
mechanisms that drive. Like there's different theories,
like gut Biome stuff. I've heard they've even tested.
I I think Rick Straussman was talking about how they were

(16:55):
testing urine, looking for dimethyltryptamine to see if
that might like overproduction in the brain or something like
that might have caused somethingalong those lines.
Who knows? It could still be something, you
know, endogenous or neurochemical or something like
that, but yeah. I we should get into this too.

(17:15):
But there is a litany of other authors and, you know,
philosophers who who are, yeah, parroting or mimicking James's
ideas without even knowing it a lot of the time coming up with
it on their own. Oh, that point lost my point.
Sorry, yeah, I lost my point. But yeah, we'll we'll get into

(17:35):
the list of other people too that are substantiating this,
this theory. That's that's pretty exciting,
yeah. So again, you can look into it
and it seems like it's got like a weird reception where it's got
like a cult following kind of. And it also, like you said, has
some esoteric aspects to it. But then, even the more
skeptical people don't. They're not, like, attacking it

(17:57):
like they would something else. You.
Know you reminded me that was what I was going to say is.
Yeah, they're they're they're desperately searching to a
materialist neurological or somesort of biological foundation
for for these things. But what James is saying is that
consciousness evolved not just with the human nervous system or

(18:20):
you know, with our our DNA or our brains, because our brains
were already in place in these pre bicameral ages.
That consciousness is really this language thing.
And then sorry it's a long way around, but to also say that you
know, someone like Rudolf Steiner will talk about etheric
and astral bodies, other non physical systems that play into

(18:42):
our consciousness that these scientists aren't studying don't
have an idea about. So sometimes I wonder in
conjecture if if they're not going to find material causes
for this stuff, but if we. More apt to find it in these
more subtle bodies, which we don't really have science for
yet. Yeah, I mean, absolutely.

(19:03):
So like, I will say that after reading this book, like I just
said, it's like, very romantic to, like, think about it in that
way. However, I still favor more of,
like, the possible entheogenuse with ritual, with more of a
spiritual side of things. You know what I'm saying?
Like, I'm not, I'm not a bicameral mind endorser.

(19:26):
Now I just think that it's a really interesting way to look
at, you know, 'cause, 'cause if you think about it, it's not,
was it? The collapse of the Bronze Age
is when he's talking about, likeI said, Solon, one of the first
people. And then even if you look at So
what we know about Socrates, we know from two people, from

(19:48):
Plato, from the dialogues and from Xenophon.
So I think Xenophon describes him as just merely a man.
So, like, how could a great man be described as merely a man?
Unless Xenophon maybe, you know,had a little bit of the

(20:11):
bicameral thing still kicking around in there, you know?
Sure, Absolutely. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah.
I don't know. Something to think about.
Absolutely. Yeah.
I follow. Yeah.
What was something in the book, though, that like, really
shocked you Because like the fact that he used the Iliad and

(20:34):
then, OK, so in the Iliad he's saying that these are all
bicameral minds. The gods are telling them what
to do. They're talking about thumos and
noose. Thumos is like your spirit or
like, it's described in different ways.
So it's kind of difficult to describe, but noose is like.
Your intelligence or your intellect or whatever.

(20:57):
But he talks about all these oldwords used and, you know, so he
in the Iliad, they're all these bicameral minds.
And then when you get to the Odyssey, Odysseus has the
ability to use introspection andmanipulate and trickster.
You know, these, what are they called?
Not sea wenches, sirens. And yeah, so yeah, the archetype

(21:19):
of a of a conniving lot, like problem solving, right?
Which is totally not what you find in the Iliad, according to
Jane's, yeah. So, but what did you did you
find that 'cause that was actually really shocking to me,
because I've read those before and I didn't even really think
about that at all when I read them.
Right. You're just thinking it's like
some old timey way of talking. Totally.

(21:41):
So I I do think, like, yeah, hisability to bring logic or just a
a new understanding that's plausible to all of these epic
poems and and phrases we find inancient texts that we either
mistranslate or just don't have,you know, any experience with.
We don't have that experience. So we paced over our modern

(22:04):
experience because why? How could we know that there's
something different? But once you see it, yeah,
everything is, you know, the thewater told him to do this and
this guy told him to do that. And his God has told him to go.
And yeah, it's like, wow, yeah. He does such a beautiful job.
Like there's like four or five more words that you, you know,

(22:25):
you that he breaks down like this is not consciousness.
It's not consciousness. Yeah.
Yeah. And then again, some of those
words all then get used as like body parts too.
So it gets get like really weirdto the way it's used real quick.
My friend is also familiar with this.
She's, she's always pointing outthat like if you read the Bible

(22:47):
you'll in the earlier bits, you always, it'll start with like
hear my voice, listen to my, youknow, listen to me, hear what I
have to say, like hear hear me. And it's like that's that's a
bicameral thing. Like it's, you know, the
auditory hallucination will become your volition.
Do do listen to the voice and doas it tells you like you.

(23:08):
You start to see the bicameral idea in all of these old.
Yeah. So do you think the catalyst
would have been like a Solon or somebody being like kind of what
you said, like you, you hear thevoice and instead of thinking,
oh, I just, I do whatever this thing's telling me to do, kind
of like it says. But maybe at that point Solon

(23:34):
realized, oh, this is just my internal.
You know, theatre or whatever, Idon't have to do that.
I have the choice or free will to do or not do that, you know.
And then that's not, that's whatwe have now, which is like,
yeah, we have our inner voice and our, you know, if you want

(23:55):
to say you're hypothetical Angeland devil on your shoulder, we
have those. And maybe some people don't
actually. I think that there is some sort
of. I don't know what it's called,
but I feel like there is something I've read where people
don't have that. Introspection.
That would be interesting. Now I got to look into that
because I think that that might work exactly.

(24:15):
So this is where like I would enter, enter a guy named
Marshall Mcluhan. Are you familiar with Mcluhan?
You know, so his whole idea is like the extensions of man and
technology, extending our body in different ways.
So like the telephone extends our vote, our voice, you know,

(24:36):
the camera extends our eyes, thetire extends our feet, you know,
so the road extends, you know everything.
All of these different technologies extend part of our
body. But so he's talking about how
the media, you know, his big thing, the medium is the
message. So he was saying it's not about
what you put in a newspaper or book.

(24:57):
It's the fact that the book is the dominant media that matters.
It's not what you put on television.
It's that the people are watching television in the
society that makes a difference.So what I hear from that is, and
what what James even points out is that people that are taught
to read and write, that cancels out bicameralism.
So that's a first important step.

(25:19):
And like you're saying, so on was one of just the only
literate people around. And because he was literate,
there was a better chance that he was not having the bicameral
experience and that he was the first one to write about his
introspection. But prior to learning to read
and write, you know, James talksabout having to deduce, OK,

(25:40):
yeah, the big, the big thing that stops the bicameralism and
starts modern consciousness is the chaos of meeting other
societies, seeing people behaving in other ways,
listening to other gods and thenwarring when when there was no
more peace. When societies are collapsing
and you're exposed to all this novelty and your, your, your

(26:00):
gods can't get you through it. And he said that you there's a
chance that the first first we had to assume that the other
person that was like a part of some other society, that maybe
they're conscious, maybe there'san eye in them.
That's why they're so different from me.
And if they have an eye in them,maybe I have an eye in me too.

(26:24):
And he talks about maybe the first people to wake up woke up
because they thought someone else was conscious.
And it almost, like, spurred them to consciousness, which is
a funny idea. It kind of turns, I forget who's
the psychologist that said like the first, the mirror stage.
Like Lacan, I think like you become conscious by recognizing
yourself. Well, Jane says it's actually
the opposite. You become conscious by
recognizing someone else with some, with some other gods that

(26:47):
are doing their own thing that doesn't match with what you're
doing. So I think Solon must have had
parents that saw the collapse ofsocieties, passed on, you know,
a slightly less bicameral thing.And then when he was educated
and taught to read and write that, that that type of
education just cancels out bicameralism.
And the last point I'll make is that's the same reason Plato was

(27:10):
against poets in his Republic. He wanted to ban poetry, and
it's because poets put people into trances and they have
bicameral experiences. And he wanted people not to have
not to learn from the oral tradition, but learn from the
written tradition. So yeah, that's what they were
mentioning, right? Like the poems with the music

(27:31):
and these like, like like they would use it as a like a system
of remembering or something likethat.
I mean it was very psychedelic. They would go into the the poet,
the reciters would go into a trance and the gods would write
recite to them and they'd repeatit and the listeners would go
into a trance and they would become the figures in the story.

(27:51):
They'd have the psychedelic, like you said, almost
entheogenic where they they become the hero that the that
the reciter is talking about. And then you know, they snap out
of it when it ends and they go, Oh my gosh, like, yeah.
So that's that's this idea of bicameralism that.
One critique I would have of of this whole theory?
Psychedelics 'cause people did. Psychedelics people did

(28:14):
entheogens. You would be hard pressed to
convince me that somebody's not introspective from one of these
experiences or people. Like for instance, if you did
the Lucidian mysteries everybodyhas to partake in at once in
their life, Everybody experiences the Kekian, so.
That in itself would be like transferring from bicameral mind

(28:38):
into some sort of conscious awareness state.
Again, I'm not this, I'm not saying I'm this would debunk his
theory. I'm just pointing out that, like
anybody who had that experience in the ancient world, I think
would have been ousted from the bicameral mind.
I I'm glad you brought that up because it dovetails with like

(28:58):
my, you know, when I think aboutand compare it with Rudolf
Steiner. So again James, you know his
method is to work within academia to use academic
methodology, publish in peer reviewed journals.
So there was a severe limit to how much he could conjecture and
to what kind of information he could use in these theories.
And I think he is a person accepted those limitations, but

(29:20):
we don't have to. And so Steiner, you know, will
talk about, just as you're saying, mystery schools and
initiations. And what I would think is that
yes, the collapse of civilizations changed
consciousness on a large scale. But what Steiner is saying that
on a small scale and on a much more intentional scale, these
mystery schools are initiating people.

(29:41):
And Steiner literally goes as far as saying this, that people
in ancient mystery circles were experiencing a kind of
consciousness that everyone in the future would experience.
That initiation is initiation into a new kind of
consciousness. So if you were talking about a
bicameral age, these people are being initiated into our modern
consciousness and so so on may have been an initiate and it was

(30:03):
through these initiating processes with psychedelics or
meditation or other things that are actually bringing people out
of bicameralism, just as you're saying.
And so James isn't tracing that lineage because it's harder with
his methodology, but we can and we can say that perhaps it
wasn't just this, the collapse, but it was these secret schools

(30:24):
that were intending to bring a new type of consciousness as a
result of their whole spiritual worldview.
I think you definitely said it. Well, yeah, I agree.
I just want to point out a greatbooks.
We're talking about the collapseof the Bronze Age.
There's a book called 1177 BC byEric Klein.
Now he's an academic. It's kind of like a mainstream

(30:44):
book, but it's a really, look, whatever you like about history,
you have to know what scientistsand archaeologists are saying.
So. Even if you don't believe it,
you should know where they standso you can have a conversation
with them about it. But that book is unbelievable to
tell you exactly what was going on in 1177 BC, which is the

(31:06):
collapse of a lot of shit. So that's and again, you can
read it with the bicameral theory in mind and they start to
bounce back. I I, I made a note.
I'll definitely check it out. And then, yeah, just just for
just to get it out of my head, like, well, yeah, do you mind me
taking another tangent? Dude, run with it bro.

(31:26):
Thank you. So I have been reading Rudolf
Steiner for a decade or more, asyou know and in Steiner
constantly you hear this phrase atavistic clairvoyance.
So atavistic kind of means ancient or like a way that

(31:48):
things used to be that they aren't anymore, a way of an
antiquated way of doing things. So he kind of says it's almost
regressive, like at that point it was fine, but now it's
atavistic clairvoyance. So he would say things like the
whole Spiritist movement and trying to get knocks on doors or
appear, have ghosts appear That,or even schizophrenia or all

(32:10):
these things are kind of like ata.
Well, OK. He talked about ancient.
He talked about ancient people having this atavistic
clairvoyance as a rule, that allancient people at a certain
point had this had this clairvoyance.
And so, you know, it just didn'ttake me long when I was reading
Janes to realize, like, they're talking about the same thing.
Steiner is saying that all ancient people have a type of
clairvoyance. And James is saying that all

(32:32):
ancient people visually and auditorily hallucinate and see
into their spiritual world. It's like, OK, these people are
saying the same thing. But what's funny is that Steiner
said it 100 years before James did, and he said it for
completely different reasons. And James said it not because he
read Steiner and agreed, but because he used a fully
different methodology but came to the same conclusion.

(32:54):
So it's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, here's this, you know, Oxford
educated linguist psychologist talking about Atavista
clairvoyance. And here's Steiner talking about
atavista clairvoyance. And then I read Marshall
Mcluhan, and he's talking about how media changes your mind that
the dominant media in the society dictates the kind of
mind. So before writing, what was the

(33:16):
media? It was this clairvoyance.
That's how society's organized. That's how they got information
around. And there's a guy named Todd
Murphy who talks about a Darwinistic theory of
reincarnation. And listening to his lecture, he
just brings up the same point. And there's Gene Gepser, there's
all these, you know, Tom Campbell.

(33:36):
His whole theory is he. Knows the first one was to kind
of. Well, I mean you.
We people attribute a ton of shit to this guy, but they don't
know exactly what exactly was his.
But Pythagoras, right? That was like he that was, he
led an acidic cult where people were vegetarian and, you know,

(33:58):
believed in reincarnation and used this number magic and
numerology to kind of figure these things out.
Totally. So like, once James put it to
me, I realized that all of the people I'm reading about are
talking about this, this, the evolution of consciousness.
And I I know you share that passion and that's what you're,

(34:20):
you know, a lot of this channel is about is like talking about
the future, the new paradigm, consciousness, spirituality,
like. So it was just really exciting
to realize. Like Oxford academic
materialist, he's talking about it.
Esotericist, he's talking about it.
You know, Mcluhan's talking about a psychologist.
They're all coming to this conclusion.
It's like this. This new paradigm is starting to

(34:41):
creep and get some serious cold.And I just thought it was so
exciting to find people hundredsof years apart, totally
dissolute, same ideas. So that was, to me, really
exciting. I absolutely.
I think you hit it on the head too, with that whole idea.
And yeah, I haven't looked into or listened to any Steiner stuff
in a long time. Maybe I'll revisit it, but in

(35:06):
terms of what you were saying, Imean.
The whole religious, you know, gods, goddesses, whole thing.
It just, it was so confusing to me recently.
Within the last few years of like doing the show, it's like

(35:26):
it's got something else has to be going on, whether it's
entheogens and ritual or meditation or some sort of.
You know, I think I wonder what other people think sometimes
because I feel, I feel like other people think that the
world used to be different, where there was like superpowers
in ancient times or something like that.
Like I'm I'm being honest too. I I feel like I when I talk to

(35:47):
people about the stuff, sometimes it's like they think
those things, but in reality theworld is the same.
I mean, maybe a little bit different, like use of
consciousness and different waysof looking at things, but.
People are people. You know, so yeah, yeah, yeah,
it's AI mean that's a big topic.But I think just to say a little

(36:10):
bit about it, like we've definitely been brought up in in
this scientific worldview where what exists is natural forces
gravity, you know that what is it, the weak and strong
electromagnetic force or stuff. I don't, you know, the the
complicated physics and all thisand so but what what brings the
world about is natural forces. Well, of course we know that

(36:34):
even Newton struggled with this idea of action at a distance,
like he invented gravity, but hedidn't know why it worked.
He could tell you how it worked and the math, but why?
Why are they attracted to each other?
We we still kind of struggle with that.
So OK, we have the scientific thing where everything is
forces. Well, if you ask me, prior to

(36:55):
that, every person on the planetexplained the way the world
worked, not in terms of forces, but in terms of beings.
Because, well, what? What is growing the plants?
Well, I got to go out and plant the plants and I got to harvest
them. They don't harvest themselves.
So, like if things get done, a being is doing them.
Why is the bee flying around? Who makes the honey?

(37:17):
Who does? You know, things?
Beings accomplish things. Not.
Not forces, not not unintelligent.
You know, there was no idea of forces.
So it makes sense to me that people thought of the way that
the world worked in terms of minds or beings or souls or so.
Then now natural forces aren't forces, They're spirits, natural

(37:39):
spirits. And everything is alive because
they didn't know how to think interms of dead forces.
So yeah, everything is a being. Everything is a God.
Because look at all this intelligence, look at all this
behavior. Things, if there, if there's
nothing alive, rocks don't move,right?
So if it's moving, if the world,all the sun is moving, it must
be alive. It must be a God, it must be a

(38:00):
being. So it's like they saw everything
in terms of being, in terms of what we might call consciousness
and not in terms of forces. So yeah, I think like that is a
big shift and now we're startingto see a shift back towards like
what are these forces? Are they intelligent, do they
have mind, are they conscious orthere's their consciousness?
And yeah, so I don't know if that if that is helps at all or.

(38:23):
Yeah, no, that was great insightI think, yeah, I I it's it's
hard to put yourself in like. Somebody elses consciousness
now, let alone somebody that lived 3004 thousand, 5000 years,
you know, whatever. So I mean really though, like

(38:47):
I'll keep saying this, this justkind of like fits all of those.
Weird mysteries that they couldn't figure out of like the
gods and gods because like even archaeologists and
anthropologists they'll tell youlike oh these were the
primordial gods Nutt and Gab andthey they, you know it had to do
with this mythology and you knowthe the beginning and but they

(39:10):
don't they don't really they don't look at it.
They don't look at they just look at how these people did
these things. They don't look at why they did
these things and and I think that's important purpose or
Telos's. Massive when it comes to the
stuff. And teleology has been utterly
removed from the sciences and philosophy and and academic

(39:31):
circles that there's no point. You know, just again, it goes
right back to the evolution of consciousness.
What's the point of it all? And if you believe in a
teleology, you think there is a point, Yeah.
And that's been taken out. So yeah, that's a great, great
call. Well, Even so, and I've talked
about this before, like even if you use like extreme cartesian
doubt about like purpose or whatever.

(39:53):
You would still be left with evolution, which is in itself is
purpose. Like trying to survive is
purpose. So if you stripped everything
away, the fundamental reason of why we multiply and live and
breathe is because that there isthat purpose is to stay alive.
So yeah, I don't know. I think Tom Campbell summed it

(40:16):
just up. What you're saying there's only,
OK, there's three options. There's you can evolve, you can
devolve, or you can stay the same.
Well, it actually takes more energy to stay the same than the
other two options. So that gets thrown out.
And you know, if you devolve, that just hurts the system.
So the system evolution is the only game in town.
There's no stasis, There's no devolving.

(40:37):
We have to continue to evolve. And it reminds me all the time
of a Gerta poem, we had the title Stability in change.
And so if you have, if you have the idea of love or
consciousness or the godhead or if this, this being, if that
does exist, it it can't just sitaround and be if it does that

(40:58):
it'll start to devolve. So everything is trying to keep
the stability and change towardsevolution, towards love.
And that's kind of how I see it.It's like, yeah, evolution is is
that's the only game in town. We got to keep moving forward
and where we're going, well, we're going to figure that out.
There's no one that can say where we're going.
We're going to get, we're going to find out when we get there.

(41:19):
Well, I mean, I wouldn't say no one.
I mean eventually here is prettysoon I think we'll have more of
a hand and where that's going, Imean just with like technology
and. CRISPR and all that kind of
stuff. So for sure I I agree with you.
I I think I look to people like Steiner, you know, maybe even
people like Tom Campbell and Marsh Mcluhan sort of

(41:40):
visionaries that are are offering insights.
But I'm taking that sentiment a bit from Steiner himself like
you know we're trying to become free and we have to if we don't
do that, we're not you know, we're not going to continue to
evolve. So yeah, there's definitely, I
think there's a big cosmic plan and then we're we're instigators
in that plan so. Yeah.

(42:01):
I mean, look, again, go read this book because it will make
you think, especially if you're into like, the ancient stuff and
had questions about things I remember.
So, like, there's the famous, like mythos surrounding Thalies
that when it was a rainy season and he realized there was going
to be more of a a harvest for olives, so he went around and

(42:23):
bought all the olive presses. Then when it came time to press
all the olives and all these people were looking, where did
they go? Oh, this dude just made a
fortune, 'cause he he understood, you know, this these
were natural forces, not bicameral gods talking to me,
telling me to do this. So again, it'll it'll make you
go back and think about all these stories and anecdotes and

(42:47):
things, and again, it fits. So it's it's weird.
It's just it could be one of those things that's just a
coincidence. But.
Maybe there's some truth in there and.
And we'll figure that out here, you know, in the future.
Yeah. And just to to reiterate that if
you're the kind of person who uses the word consciousness, you
kind of have to read bicameralism, not because he's

(43:08):
right, but because he does such a good job analyzing the reality
of consciousness that it's just worth having in your toolbox and
your lexicon. Yeah.
If you're interested in ancient mythology like you're saying,
like, there's a bunch of different angles to approach it.
But certainly if you're talking about consciousness, you've got
to put this on your reading list.
It's just one of those books. Yeah, so.

(43:28):
And there's it's really three books in one and he kind of
breaks down everything in each one.
I just to interrupt real quick, even if you were to read the the
1st 100 pages where like you're saying the first third where
he's just talking about what consciousness is and what it
isn't. But you could stop there and you
would be so benefited so much from having picked that up.

(43:49):
But once you get that far, it ispretty hard to stop, as you
know, having read the book. What do you what do you think?
What how would you define? I'll I'll tell you real quick
how I think about it now after reading this and just everything
I know. I define consciousness as
self-awareness and introspection, meaning that you
can look at. Your relationship to the

(44:09):
external world around you and make decisions, manipulate
things, alter things, things of that nature.
It's not just, oh, lights comingin or oh it's it's it's the
complex system that gets formed through, whether it's evolution
or evolution of mind as you get older and your system just
starts to kind of start firing into place.

(44:31):
But it's the when things are clicking, it's the ability to
think about. Things internally and then
externalize them or vice versa or whatever, right.
Oh yeah, it's a good question. I'm, I'm reaching to think about
what How would James answer that?
But how am I answering that? Yeah, consciousness.

(44:57):
I like to sometimes. I think of it as like the stage.
Hold on. It was funny.
You're like, yeah, consciousness.
And I hate, like one of those old timey guys.
He's got like a little mustache,right, These twirling, you know,
be a good little clip to pull out and get memed.
Yeah. Oh, man.
Yeah. Yeah, maybe.
You know I think of it like there's the eye like James talks

(45:18):
about, but then there's the stage that all the things that
the eye interacts with and the stage is kind of like the
consciousness. But you made a good point.
You don't just witness it, you also do consciousness.
So it's not just the stage because there's an interactive
element. I I'm, I'm a big fan of just you
know, reciting what other peoplethink of things.

(45:41):
So I think Steiner has a cool system where he talks about
physical ether, astral I body, but then he talks about where we
are now is like developing like we're like spiritualizing the
etheric body, which he calls like consciousness, soul.
And then we'll spiritualize the astral body and then eventually
spiritualize the physical body. So he has these seven stages and

(46:04):
he puts us at like 4 going on tofive.
So he's got an answer, you know,and yeah, yeah, consciousness.
I just think it's just such a hard question to answer it when
you're talking about James because he does such a good job
of whittling away everything youthought you knew about what
consciousness is until it's likeI I in spatialization and an eye

(46:26):
in a mind. An analogue eye in a mind space.
Yeah, it's a good question. Yeah, but I mean just think
about the like that. I thought about it like when I
was thinking about like, that's like kind of like what a video
game would be like. You hit a button, the thing does
the thing. Not that there would be the God

(46:48):
though, and the control. You're doing that thing to
yourself if that makes sense. Like it would be a video game
playing itself, but just still doing the video game and not
doing like whatever it wants or free will or whatever.
Yeah, you're you're you're pointing towards this idea that
like, and this is a bit of a mcluhanist idea that like the

(47:08):
media we make extends our body. So like, you know, these
alternate realities or virtual realities, like, it's almost
like we're extending the spatialization that James talks
about like into a, not just intoour, you know, we, we think we
have like the space in our headswhere our consciousness is, but
then the video game is like a new space where the
consciousness fills up outside of our heads.

(47:30):
I mean, yeah, we're extending ourselves into these systems in
really surprising ways. Yeah, absolutely.
It's very bizarre. It's tough.
I want to read Mcluhan and Jamesand Steiner and Tom Campbell all
at once and it's like, oh God, Ican never keep it all straight
because they're all yeah. Yeah, I haven't.
I don't know. I went on a.

(47:50):
Non reading kick. And then I I started reading
again about a few months ago andthis was one of them along with
a few other ones and some gueststhat we have coming up and their
books and stuff. But but yeah, I mean, I don't
know. I think not to take a little bit
of a diversion, but I think, I really do think like moderation

(48:14):
is the key to life. Like, I'm at my best when I'm
like playing a little guitar. Playing a little Call of Duty or
NHL you know for me time obviously I have a son and a
wife and that takes up you know most of my day.
But me time everything. When I'm all my the podcast the
creative stuff everything's kicking and and right lately

(48:35):
I've I've been thinking like when I focus too heavily on any
one of those things but I don't know why this made me think of
that but I just I think the flowstate really is the moderation
and and constantly. You know tickling your your
passions. No, I I think there's I I
appreciate you saying that because you're bringing us to a
very pragmatic and practical place that I think it's always

(48:56):
important to have that in mind. We're all very philosophical
people but you have to be a bodyand a person and be bring
balance. And I, I, I that's AI think
that's a very good sentiment. And you work hard, man.
I'm impressed. So I couldn't then.
Oh, I appreciate it, man. It's tough, but it's tough.

(49:17):
It's tough having a full time job, you know, a little son that
you also help take care of during the week.
You know, and like, dude, child care is super expensive.
I don't. I mean, I'm sure you know, you
know, people know, but you know,on top of all that, just
everything, all the. The pursuits that I do on the
side and the podcast stuff and the creative stuff and but let's

(49:39):
the reason why I said that though is I want to segue to a
little bit of what you do with glass and art.
Because I think art is the ultimate form of breaking out of
this bicameral mind like originality through art and
expression is. Yeah.
I mean, I think that that's that's another thing I was

(50:02):
thinking of too is like. Cave art did those people, for a
moment, were those like a few people throughout time that are
just like capturing what we're talking about.
And then maybe not the rest of the people, but there was a few
artists and a few, you know, intellectuals or whatever.
Yeah, even the academics say that whoever painted them were

(50:22):
probably tribal leaders or shamans or someone of great
significance within the society.That was playing a very
important role. And I I totally think you're on
to it like that, that the the drawing itself shows that
there's a different type of mentality than everyone else
that's there. And then it's a more modern
mentality. So I think I I totally agree and

(50:42):
I appreciate you bringing that up.
Yeah, I've been doing glass for a living now for like last year
and a half and there is just so much balance you have to bring
to it. Like I I don't want, I can't
spend too much time doing that. I, you know, I do have a
tendency to read a lot, but I can't do that all the time.
I, I I play disc golf. That's one of my things.
So I I definitely have a lot of hobbies I balance myself in.

(51:05):
I think, you know we can't we can't let the corporations get
us and think about this idea of productivity.
You know there's we're not we'renot trying to be productive.
We're trying to be becomes more spiritual and more loving and
that may mean sitting and being silent and being goalless and
rejuvenating and bringing balance.
And yeah, it's hard to separate productivity with like your own

(51:27):
spiritual aspirations, but there's certainly, I think
there's something of a difference, yeah.
Yeah, you don't want to be that noble cog or whatever.
You're not like, you just we alllike whatever it is, whatever
you're passionate about, start doing it.
If you're not doing it right now, take it from me.
Like I just said, I'm at my bestwhen I'm balancing all these
things, hitting them all, you know?

(51:48):
Same thing with my boy Tischler over here.
Listen to this guy. Look.
Go check out his glass. A Tischler glass?
Seriously. On Instagram or a Tischler
glass.com and buy yourself a terp set.
Get a marble marble your marble.You don't have to do anything,
you can just set it. It looks beautiful on your you

(52:08):
know, your counter, whatever. Your your, your collection.
I have a collection. I'm a collector.
But I'm trying to trying to get some more pieces into your
collection. I we talked about follow up with
that. I'm all I'll.
I'll be definitely adding to that in the future and I will.
I just want to reference becauseyou're giving me the platform.
If if anyone listening is savvy on Instagram and they aren't

(52:31):
finding stuff in their price range or is not seeing something
they want. If you just mentioned this is
how you found me, we can definitely work on something I
want to support Mike what you'redoing and all the people
supporting you so but we're a little community so just
mentioned that you found me thatway I'd I'd be happy to to get
something in your hands. So very support, very
appreciative of you guys. Dude, that's awesome for sure.

(52:51):
Somebody take advantage of that because that's no he's seriously
he's he's got stuffs on a lot ofthe nice online galleries and
stuff like that too. So his stuff's out there.
I will also point out that. We may be, I don't know, you
know, we'll talk about this more, but we were talking about
maybe doing a collaboration too,maybe like a mind escape marble

(53:12):
or something like that. I think something like if you're
interested, somebody's interested or people are
interested in some sort of mind escape, either functional or non
functional glass piece, let me know.
Yes, yeah, I'm already. I'm thinking of ideas right now
to get like a couple pieces madethat, yeah, that, yeah, there's
some options. So it'll be some work, but it's
totally worth it. Yeah, it might be hard, I.

(53:33):
And I I'm not taking into account how hard this would be,
but I think a dicurlic or dicuric background with like
some like slime green writing oror colors or something like
that. I've seen you, you've good slime
work on your on some of your marbles where you do those
flower patterns. Thank you.
Yeah. Are you familiar with the term

(53:54):
Marini? You know Marini, people can do
like an image and then like they'll do an image and kind of
like a a flat 2D thing. And then you stretch it out and
cut up the slices and that imagegets like a small, you get like
a little coin with that image onit.
So if we could do your logo in aMarini, we could stretch it out

(54:15):
and cut up like 10 or 20 and then you can make more than one
piece. Oh dude, yeah.
That would be a way to get kind of like your image.
And then we put some dichro behind it.
Like, yeah, I haven't done too much work like that, but I
would. It's such a good reason to try.
So yeah, yeah, yeah. Let me think about it.
Yeah, we'll, we'll, we'll get more into that.
I'll let people know if that comes to fruition, cuz I think
that that'd be kind of cool. And obviously, you know, we

(54:38):
wanna support Andrew here and what he's doing and yeah, go
check his stuff out like on a Tischler glass.com.
All right, let's get back into this now.
What what was your take away from the whole thing?
Obviously, like I mentioned, I'mnot completely sold.
I think it's super interesting. It fits a lot of of the the

(54:58):
holes or plugs, a lot of the holes of mysteries and stuff.
But through my own experiences, I do think that it's tough.
Look, I have OCD, so I have my brain works differently to begin
with. So it's not that hard to believe
that that's possible. It's just hard for me to believe
that. Throughout time we just this

(55:23):
guy's had to come up with this intricate theory to explain that
we just didn't figure it out. Which is possible I guess too.
But I don't know What was your final take away from the whole
thing. Yeah it's.
I think that's well said. Like it it really, until you put
all of the pieces together like he's describing, it's kind of

(55:44):
hard to believe. And he admits it all the time.
Like, you know, it's kind of an unbelievable theory.
So it really takes like seeing it from the very particular
angle that he saw it from to sort of have it make sense.
But like you're saying, when youdo look at it from that angle,
it does make a crap ton of sense.
But I just think my take away and I definitely referenced it,

(56:06):
the fact that kind of like everyone I'm reading is talking
about the evolution of consciousness, like it that kind
of makes me excited. So I I think you're right.
I'm not committed to him being the guy because I think there's
a lot more that needs to be added.
But he's, I think he's one of the guys that is starting to
build that foundation. Just just I just I think we can

(56:29):
agree that like consciousness and mind and and spirituality
like are are the big debates right now.
So it's just a piece in that debate.
I mean, I'll give you, I'll giveyou a hot take, which is I could
stop the show right now and justsay all this is going to be
wrong 100 years from now. I'm not going to do that because

(56:50):
I feel like you do need to buildthe correct narrative.
So like, I'm not saying that I'mlike super intelligent or
anything like that. But I see a lot of dumb people
out there talking about a lot ofstuff that they probably
shouldn't be. And then they have like way huge
audiences. So it's like you kind of have to
combat the BS with some of the more legitimate research, you

(57:10):
know? And that's what I feel like I'm
doing. I'm trying to add value to, you
know, whether I think it's rightor wrong, I want to present it
in a way that allow people to digest it.
And and like, maybe they don't have the time to sit there and
read the whole book or whatever,but they can take away knowing
that like. I'm an honest person.
I'm not going to be like, oh, I figured it out, or that we

(57:30):
figured that we're never going to figure it out.
And I'll give you the final partof the heart hot take is we may
never figure it out because we're in it.
We are in consciousness. Unless you were able to escape
consciousness, which is what this show is called.
Mind escape. If you can escape your mind.
The closest I ever got was with chemical intervention.
But if you can escape your mind,you might have a chance at

(57:52):
figuring out what consciousness near death experience.
You know, there's a couple ways to do this.
So it's not like it's impossible.
But again, we might not ever figure it out because that is
what we we're trying to measure consciousness with
consciousness. We're the observer trying to
measure an observation, you know, like we're we're, it's

(58:13):
kind of like a a double negativein a way if you think about it.
So, well, yeah. To just to to to what's the what
the phrase you use, but you haveto go back the other direction.
What's fun with James and these people is that they're so far on
the fringes now that in 100 years maybe they'll move towards

(58:35):
the center, whereas the things that are in the center now in
100 years will definitely be moved on from.
So James kind of occupies a veryfringe space.
So it's like, yeah, that's my fun way of it's yeah, he maybe
he will be the one that we have to say is wrong 100 years from
now because he was a bit ahead of his time.
And like you're saying we still will have to overcome even that

(58:55):
at some point. But at least he, he's one of
these fringe guys that, you know, yeah, maybe we'll be part
of the new paradigm that you're saying we'll have to overcome
that too. And I totally agree with that.
But also you're bringing up likereally important personal points
of view about like balancing your your interest in all these

(59:16):
topics with like you know your own life.
And maybe we can get another episode going about my guy
Steiner and the philosophy of freedom, which is his one of his
main texts. And because he actually, you
know talks about like you know epistemology and like studying
mind and where it came from and like yeah, like a lot of what

(59:37):
you're talking about is is in that is in his some of his early
work. So could be another episode.
No, let's do it. I mean, I I was all into that.
I was. Hands deep into that, you know
back when we were doing those episodes, I just did something
that, you know, you get on like A roll with other stuff and you
just don't really think about it.

(59:57):
Nothing against them. I just don't really, you know,
haven't thought about them in a while.
But I'm gonna pick that back up,you know, like I said, let's do,
let's do that. Let's do an episode on Steiner.
We'll get it on the books and yeah, I'll start looking into
it. Just give me like a little bit
of direction of what you wanna. Look into and we'll go there.

(01:00:19):
Yeah, he's got some nice practical advice about
spirituality that is very different from his, like crazy
theories about Atlantis and all the other stuff that he talks
about. So yeah, we could maybe narrow
in on that. I can get you some stuff to
read, yeah. I mean, I'm not worried.
That seems more of like, thinking back, I thought like,

(01:00:41):
oh, it take that. But no, that's like like Lemuria
and you know, all that stuff. There's a thing where he's
talking about like the Egyptian traditions.
And he starts to equate like their architecture with the way
that their minds are at the time.
Like, you know, if you look at, he was just making correlations

(01:01:03):
between like if you look at likethe Greek temples and some of
them are like open air and these, you know, like he was
just making connections between that and like the culture of the
people too. But but yeah, it some of it gets
wacky, but I mean a lot of stuffgets wacky.
So it's like it's if that's whatwe're worried about.
I mean, that guy lived 100 / 100years ago, you know so.

(01:01:25):
Yeah, I just, I got into Steinerreading his philosophy and then
I found out that he had all thisother stuff to say.
And I I feel lucky that I got into his philosophy first,
'cause I think if without that. You don't really know what to
make of all the other stuff. Like you're saying There's lots
of people that have said lots ofthings.
So I like to talk about Steiner's philosophy because I

(01:01:46):
think it gets at more of the heart of what the practical
stuff you're talking about. Yeah, I mean that turn of the
century time too is tough. Like Madame Blavatsky, you know,
a lot of that stuff has like race, racial undertones and you
know, a lot of like messed up shit in there.
But again, those are turn of thecentury people.
Not that you, you know, whatever.
But you can. You know, I can do it, but it

(01:02:09):
seems like most of society can'tseparate the art from the
artists. Not that we need to be, like,
excusing terrible, disgusting behavior.
But somebody, if we're gonna read Marcus Aurelius's
Meditations and there's something in there that we don't
like, are we gonna be like, oh, this is the whole thing's
garbage? No, you you don't do that.
I agree, and I'm definitely a a big fan of.

(01:02:31):
I I will always, if I get into somebody, I always Google like
debunking this person or criticisms of this person
because I want to know both sides.
And yeah, there's definitely stuff that you can talk about
with Steiner and these people. But again, I I just, you know,
if you read Steiner's philosophyof freedom, he actually
addresses some of that stuff andyou know his.

(01:02:53):
Point of view is that this, if the human being is free, then it
can be free of all of these sociological, psychological,
historical, racial, all that stuff is falls away if you're
talking about true freedom. And I I think, you know,
Steiner's got a beautiful point of view on that.
So yeah, I yeah, exactly. No, I'm I'm down.
We'll do the episode on it. And so the bicameral mind, I'm

(01:03:21):
putting it on the shelf as something kind of credit.
Like I'll still need to go digest what it, what it was
when, you know, I've finished reading it, I don't know, four
or five days ago. And since then I've like thought
about all these like other things that I've read or like
theories and stuff like that andhow it plays off of that.
So I still think I need to digest it.

(01:03:42):
So we could even maybe even do another episode on this as well
as what I was going to say. Yeah, we can definitely do that,
'cause like you said, they're 3 thirds of the book, and we've
kind of touched on some of it, but there's definitely more we
can dive into. Oh, there's a ton.
I mean, it's it's there's a lot,'cause even it's not the biggest
book. I mean, it's big, but it's not
the biggest book in the world. But the the content is so like

(01:04:03):
alt like mind altering, you know, in itself.
So. Yeah, it'd be fun maybe to dig
into like, the role of the ziggurat and the role of idols
and then the role of, you know, wildlife.
Yeah, like that part. Yeah, let's definitely talk
about that next time for. Sure.
Yeah. Yeah.
That could be fun. And I think you're right.
We could both brush up on it again, because there's so much

(01:04:25):
information in that book so thatwe're ready to talk about it.
That sounds great. Yeah.
Yeah, cool. Is there anything we wanted to
hit on here before we wrap it up?
No, I think I I I mean, I yeah, we we, I think it's great.
We can always do another episode, but I feel pretty good.
I got to mention, you know, it'snot just Jane's, but a whole.
And, you know, a whole bunch of people talking about

(01:04:45):
consciousness, talking about, and well, did we ever talk about
Doctor Claire Graves? I talked about with somebody
else, but that is you didn't. Mention it.
That one is, you know, there's abook called Spiral Dynamics that
was written by these other two guys.

(01:05:06):
But Doctor Claire Graves was a professor at a university, I
want to say somewhere in like Ohio or something that came up
with this thing. There's like 8 things.
And you your consciousness as itevolves like swings, like a
pendulum, like you'll go from like theistic thinking to non
theistic thinking to, you know, it just goes, starts going back

(01:05:27):
and forth. And then you get to a point
where your consciousness is so evolved you're recognizing the
patterns that lead to interactions and behaviors and
things like that where you can predict things that are gonna
happen. I mean I do that because I have
OCD sometimes because it's like a like a almost like a defense
mechanism when you're in the heightened state of.

(01:05:48):
But this talks about how you canachieve that as like a regular
state of being and like you knowthat kind of a thing.
So it's a it's a really interesting way of looking.
I haven't looked at it in a while.
I think that it's kind of got also got like a cult following,
but something interesting to look into all.
Right, 1177 BC Claire. Yeah, I've got, I've got my list
going, so thank you for that. Yeah, well I mean that's that's

(01:06:14):
about it here, Let's wrap it up please, one more time, go check
out a Tischler glass on Instagram.
He's super active on there. I always add his stuff to my
story when I see it and as well I've, you know I've been
supporting the the glass art community lately pretty hard.
It's something that I've I've actually been collecting

(01:06:36):
functional and non functional pieces since I was like 19.
So I think I got my first Bowl on fish tour at IT festival.
That was 2003. Two thousand such.
A small world. It's amazing, yeah.
But yeah, man, I, I it's crazy that we're talking about this.
And you know, you're into a lot of the same stuff as me, so

(01:07:00):
you're welcome on anytime. Of course, I know it's been a
while since you've been on, but don't be a stranger.
Obviously we'll try and get the Steiner one in Part 2 of this.
And yeah, everybody go go buy a a terp set or a marble right
now. He'll hook you up bro.
I'm. I'm going to return.
I'm going to return the favor because since I've been on,
you've done 200 episodes and you've had some really big names

(01:07:22):
on this show like that kind of surprised me a couple of times.
That's amazing. And all the hard work you're
putting in, it is not easy to dowhat you do.
So it's awesome to see and it's great to be back on.
With this like new evolved platform and yeah, so thanks for
having me. Thanks for all the time you put
in. Like I would never have been
able to have this conversation if it wasn't for you putting out

(01:07:44):
that content. So oh man, I'm I'm all about
connecting with people and interesting things.
And dude, thank you so much for your kind words.
And if anybody wants to support Mind Escape, the best way to do
it is to go to our link tree link down below.
It's got every time we got a merch store with designs that I
created. We've got Patreon with exclusive

(01:08:07):
episodes. You know some of the people he
just mentioned, Rick Strassman and Randall Carlson.
And a lot of these big, big namepeople are on there as well.
And what else? Oh, go check out our
documentary. It's free on YouTube right now.
It is called As Within, So Without from UFOs to DMT.

(01:08:27):
There is an extended cut on our Patreon as well for 777.
You get the exclusive content with that as well, and I'm just
trying to think the easiest way to support the show.
If you can't spare any goodies our way would be just to leave
us a nice review on Apple Podcast or Spotify.
We do do all of our episodes live on our YouTube channel,

(01:08:47):
please subscribe to that. But we also have our video
episodes on Spotify. If you're not checking that out,
please do that as well. It's in 4K.
We're really pulling out all thestops here.
So oh, I'm working on a new song.
It's super sick love where it's going.
Should be ready maybe by next week in a new video being worked

(01:09:09):
on here eventually by Maurice C Yeah, that's that's right.
Maurice is still alive. He might be.
He might be on one time. I don't know.
But yeah, so look for all that. But listen, we got to wrap it up
here. We love you.
We love everybody. Please stay safe out there.
Spread love. Spread kindness.

(01:09:32):
Don't don't listen to what's on the news.
It's garbage. So just spread love and peace
and yeah, that's it. Love everybody.
Stay safe out there. We'll catch you next time.
Peace the.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Cardiac Cowboys

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Andrew Tischler breaks down The Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes Episode #294

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Cardiac Cowboys

All Episodes

Andrew Tischler breaks down The Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes Episode #294

Stuff You Should Know