Månedsarkiv: maj 2017

The Origins Of Mind And Other Trifles

(22./26.maj.2017). On a bright and sunny day like this fine monday in May, I happen often to feel an urge to visit a library, a dusty archive or an antiquarian bookseller. I suppose most of my readers follow me – no?

So of course nothing could be more natural than make today’s city stroll pass by the dutch booksale at Vangsgaard’s on Kultorvet here in Copenhagen. Today’s price is 25 kr (abt. $3,50) per book.
I bought a small handfull, among which:

1. THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAK-DOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND. By Julian Jaynes. Boston, 1990, Houghton-Mifflin, 491 p. Large paperback.

This specimen is somewhat used in appearance, but still holding together reasonably well. The front cover carries a sticker saying “With a new afterword by the author”.

On the back cover is a photo of the author and a synopsis saying a.o.t.:

“At the heart of this internationally acclaimed and hotly debated book is the startling theory that human consciousness did not develop slowly over time – that, in fact, ancient peoples from Mesopotamia to Peru did not “think” as we do and therefore were not conscious.

“Drawing on recent laboratory studies of the brain and close examination of archaelogical evidence, Jaynes concludes, that consciousness is not a product of evolution but of catastrophic events in our own history, events that occurred as recently as three thousand years ago. The implications of this theory extend into every aspect of our culture”.

Of course I only bought the book a couple hours ago, and have since then been busy sipping coffee and skimming todays papers.

I have thus hardly read one whole line in the book, only skimmed a few words here and there.

But already I believe Julian Jaynes’ book may be potentially hugely interesting. Off hand a cursory glance on a few pages combined with above synopsis from the back cover reminds me of issues like creationists versus Darwinian evolution; or perhaps of Drake, Kolenberg and Sitchin’s theories of “cosmic seeding”? Perhaps also of questions concerning mans double brain – the left and the right? (comp. http://www.gamleboeger.dk/2017/03/24/the-robots-cash-ban/ )

I’am certainly looking forward to perusing this perhaps both genuinely scholarly and eccentric work.

(Update 23.May.2017) After posting the above last evening i have had a chance to browse a bit more and even read a few pages in Julian Jaynes fascinating book. As it will probably be a few weeks before i may get the leisure to peruse the book more closely, I would like to add the following few remarks at this point.

I now believe I’m right in assuming, that the functional differences between the right and left hemispheres of the brain are prominent among issues treated in the book.

Especially I’ve noted the following: The author asserts that prehistoric man – and partly also man of antiquity – were dominated by their right half-brain. Author believes a certain center there made man hear voices – which he calls the “voices of the gods”.

These voices told humans how to behave and what to do and like; man had really no inherent will or opinion in existential or practical matters. Hence the authors allegation they had no “consciousness”.

But then (suddenly?) “it came to pass” that the left hemisphere of the brain took over? Which is supposed to have given man his exquisite language skills, also his own will or “consciousness”, and – eventually – humanity its civilization.

My imprompty remarks: What the author describes as “hearing voices” and “the voices of the gods” seems to be based mostly on his study of patients in psychiatric hospitals, and hence scewed by their insanity.

However his ideas probably could have a more general interest if based on the well established phenomena of telepathy – and not so much on unhealthy, abnormal, even morbid degenerations of psychiatric patients.

For obviously man of antiquity (and prehistory) were able to use this faculty of telepathy much more in practical life than modern man. Telepathy thus enabled him to “listen to”, “have a feeling for”, “have empathy for” his fellow man, be they his friends or his foes.

The author seems to think, that the brains right hemisphere is mans controller, his “general”, “strategist” (or whatever) as it is mostly this part of the brain that sees and uses patterns and designs: Our holistic brain?

But eventually the left part of the brain – according to the author perhaps rather suddenly abt. 3000 years ago – became more prominent and even dominant. Language, words and scripture became more advanced – while the telepathic skills of the brains right side languished, eventually becoming only rudimentary in the wast majority.

(Perhaps it should also be mentioned that many authors maintain, that “aliens” seem to communicate only or mostly by telepathy. See f.inst. historian Richard M. Dolan’s two massive volumes “UFOs & The National Security State” (2009)).

This developing shift in the “balance of power” of the brains two hemispheres has normally been described as an improvement, a progress. Which it is, however, only in so far as the telepathic faculties of the right brain – including “intuitive feeling” and “empathy” – did not disappear.

Otherwise the shift might perhaps more accurately have been described as a degeneration, as seems to perhaps be the case with modern man? Hence modern civilizations character of fragmentation and disintegration; of reckless egotism and satanism.

My above remarks are however rather impromptu. I hope to be able to comment a bit more on Julian Jaynes brilliant book in a few weeks or months.

2. LITTERATUR BILLEDER. Af Vilh. Andersen. København, Det Nordiske Forlag – Ernst Bojesen. 1903, 227p. Original edition, very nicely bound in private halfcalf, only slightly worn.

The author is of course the well known danish litterature historian and critic Vilhelm Andersen (1864-1953), from 1908 for many years professor at the Copenhagen University.

I believe this is his first collection of essays on litterature. They are sampled from different sources, though mostly from newspapers and magazines.


I have to admit I already own the book, but as a rather nondiscript paperback, quite without soul. Perhaps this is the reason I have hardly read in the book yet.

When browsing in the store I happened to open on page 81 and read this (from essay on Henrik Hertz):

“Omtrent midt imellem Hørsholm og Rungsted ligger et stykke inde paa marken en høj, som Hertz til fru Heibergs erindring døbte Hannabjerget. Her var hans yndlingsplads. Han kalder i et brev udsigten derfra “ubestridelig den smukkeste i hele Danmark”.

“Staar man paa denne høj og vender sig mod nord, har man bag ved sig skove, til venstre imellem landevejstræerne byen med de røde tage og møllevingerne ovenover, til højre Sundet med Hveen og sejlerne, og foran sig, i bakke og dal, marker og enge i vid uendelighed.

“Det ser virkelig ud, som om den danske natur paa dette sted havde gjort en udstilling af alle sine yndigheder. Netop dette ligesom kunstnerisk arrangerede tiltalte Hertz. I et af sine digte raader han, at man for at have ret glæde af naturen skal arrangere den med et kunstnerøje.

“Det mærkes paa alt det smukke, som han har skrevet om sit fædrelands skønhed, at han har kendt lidt til at lade sig betage af den vilde fri natur – sligt vilde vist forekommet ham raat – men som en Københavner holdt meget af at se på udsigter.

“Naar det saa en dag var rigtig varmt og stille i vejret, gik Hertz gerne igennem Rungsted skov helt ned til stranden. Her kunde han ligge i timevis paa en høj skrænt og døse og stirre ud over Sundet paa det himmelblaa vand med de sitrende solstriber, de lavt flakkende maager, de skinnende sejl. Hans unordiske natur elskede denne hede stilhed.

“I hans digte er der altid stilhed og meget ofte netop denne tropiske middagsstilhed, hvor “varmen synker sagte ned, og naturen som i drømme er fordybet i sin fred”. I en saadan stilhed maa man, for ret at forstaa dette stykkes poesi, tænke sig, at “Kong Renés Datter” foregaar”.

I suppose Hannebjerget may be just about where you now find Hannebjerg Vej? So I probably have passed by this location almost daily for abt. 3 years when biking from Hørsholm to Rungsted Statsskole, where i was made a student in 1964.

In the nineteensixties you still had to pass by a small farm (“Opmæsgaard”?) with dunghill and wheat fields and all to get from Hørsholm to Rungsted by (still existing) Ørbækvej, Gl.Vallerødvej and Bolbrovej.

However the farm and wheat fields have long since been converted to a giant, ugly, concrete “Berlin Wall” with appartments. And, alas, I fear that the present day view from what may be back of Hannabjerget to the south out over this giant, “half-mile-long” appartment house may be one of the least charming in North Seeland?

3. REVUE DES DEUX MONDES. TABLE. DEUXIEME PERIODE 1874-85. Paris, 1886, 204p, bound in half-calf.

I have recently acquired some stray issues of this venerable magazine, of which I bought a large box shock full many years ago (now mostly discarded). But these tables of content may be as rare as perhaps helpful for an occasional reader.


To be crossposted on http://www.gamleboeger.dk and https://blocnotesimma.wordpress.com

Tweets on http://www.twitter.com/gamleboeger


(03/26.05.2017) Det følgende lille stykke drejer sig som man ser især om hvorvidt internationale topvidenskabsmænd indenfor kosmologi og teoretisk fysik undertidertiden kan siges ikke at optræde helt seriøst udadtil, d.v.s. med hensyn til at forklare sig overfor almenheden.

At dette tema iøvrigt netop nu er hyperaktuelt ikke mindst i forhold til CERN’s THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER kan man bl.a. læse om på http://www.cerntruth.com. Forfatteren hævder bl.a., at The Large Hadron Collider i virkeligheden er en gigant-bombe, “a cosmic bomb”, hvis konstruktører foruroligende nok synes at operere helt udenfor politisk kontrol! (se mere nederst).

Den 7. jan. 2009 bragte http://www.drudgereport.com/ en henvisning til en notits “Mystery roar from faraway space detected” på hjemmesiden http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090107-aas-loud-cosmic-noise.html.

Det en kort artikel om en opdagelse, der er meget interessant i sig selv, men som ligeledes har interesse fordi artiklen synes ret karakteristisk for niveauet af den (populær)videnskabelige information. Jeg gengiver først det væsentligste af den ret korte artikel (min oversættelse):

“Long Beach, Calif. – Vi forestiller os som oftest, at verdensrummet er et meget roligt, tyst sted. Men et team af astronomer har fundet en mystisk kosmisk støj, som drøner seks gange højere end forventet.

Drønet kommer fra det fjerne rum. Ingen ved hvad det skyldes. (—)

Radiobølger er ikke lydbølger, men er elektromagnetiske bølger, som befinder sig i lavfrekens området af det elektromagnetiske spektrum.

Mange objekter i universet, herunder stjerner og quasarer, udsender radiobølger. Selv vor egen galaxe, mælkevejen, udsender en statisk støj (eller syden (hiss), først opdaget i 1931 af fysikeren Karl Jansky). Andre galaxer udsender også en baggrunds radiostøj.

Men det nyligt opdagede signal, som er beskrevet her idag på det 213. møde i the American Astronomical Society, er langt kraftigere end astronomerne forventede.

Der “foregår noget nyt og interessant i universet”, sagde Alan Kogut fra NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center i Greenbelt, Maryland.

Et team under Koguts ledelse opdagede signalet med et ballonbåret instrument kaldt ARCADE (Absolute Radiometer for Cosmology, Astrophysics and Diffuse Emission).

Instrumentet blev opsendt fra NASA’s facility in Palestine, Texas i juli 2006 og nåede op i en højde af omkring 36,5 km, hvor atmosfæren nærmer sig absolut vacuum.

ARCADE’s opgave var at afsøge himlen for svage tegn på varme fra den første generation af stjerner, men istedet hørte man et drøn fra universets fjerne dybder.

“The universe really threw us a curve”, sagde Kogut. “Istedet for de svage signaler, som vi havde håbet at finde, så vi denne drønende støj (booming noice), seks gange kraftigere end nogen af os havde forudset”.

Detaljerede analyser af signalet udelukker nydannede stjerner og alle andre, kendte radiokilder, herunder den ydre halo af vor egen galaxe.

Andre radiogalaxer kan ikke være årsag til støjsignalet (the noise) – der er ganske enkelt ikke nok af dem.

“Man ville være nødt til at pakke dem sammen i universet så tæt som sardiner”, sagde teammedlem Dale Fixsen fra Universitet i Maryland. “Der ville i så fald ikke være noget som helst rum tilbage mellem galaxerne”.

Signalet er målt til at være seks gange kraftigere end den samlede radioudstråling fra alle kendte radiostøjkilder i universet.

Indtil videre er kilden til signalet et mysterium. (—)

Og ikke alene har det præsenteret en ny gåde for astronomerne, men det skjuler tillige de eftersøgte signaler fra de tidligste stjerner. Men den kosmiske statiske støj (static) kan i givet fald give vigtige indicier om galaxernes udvikling, da universet var meget yngre, d.v.s. mindre end halv så gammel som nu. Fordi radiobølgerne kommer langt borte fra med lysets hastighed, så repræsenterer de universet i en tidligere tidsalder. (—)”.

Så vidt artiklen. For en astronomisk interesseret, er overskriften nok til at man spidser øren. Men læser man så artiklen, så bliver man som så ofte før ved populærvidenskabelige artikler ladt i stikken.

Der er mange uklarheder i rapporten. En videnskabsmand udtaler f.eks., at det opdagede signal “er seks gange kraftigere, end nogen af os forventede”. Længere nede siges, at signalet er målt til at være seks gange kraftigere end den samlede radioudstråling fra alle kendte radiostøjkilder i universet.

Altså – havde man forventet at opdage et hidtil ukendt signal, som var ligeså kraftig som den samlede radioudstråling fra alle kendte radiostøjkilder i universet?

Det er ligeledes uklart, hvad der menes med “den første generation af stjerner” resp. “de tidligste stjerner”. Mener man nye stjerner under dannelse i vor egen eller nærliggende galaxer, eller mener man extremt fjerne stjerner, som man kalder tidlige stjerner, fordi man mener, at universet var ungt for f.eks. 13 milliarder år siden?

Og som sædvanlig får man ingen konkrete, hard facts: Hvad er det konkret man har målt?

Hvilken karakter har det målte radiosignal. Er det et vedvarende signal? Eller er det periodisk, d.v.s. med afbrydelser?

Er det punktformet, og i så fald, kommer det fra flere punkter i kosmos? Eller kommer det fra alle retninger i kosmos, og med ensartet styrke og frekvens? Hvilken frekvens har signalet, eller hvilken båndbredde (d.v.s. frekvensområde).

Har signalet karakter af (baggrunds)støj, eller har det en struktur med hensyn til frekvens eller amplitude. D.v.s. er det evt. frekvensmoduleret eller amplitudemoduleret.

Der tales i rapporten om “detailed analysis af the signal” – men hvad er så resultatet af denne detaljerede analyse?

Har det været muligt at konstatere en doppler-effekt (svarende til en rødforskydning i lysspektret), og derved konstatere noget om f.eks. den afstand/tid, som signalet kan have gennemrejst i kosmos resp. om afstanden til kilden/kilderne.

Personligt synes jeg, man lades så godt som helt i stikken. Og havde jeg været mere sagkyndig, ville jeg sikkert kunne have stillet endnu flere spørgsmål.

Jeg håber faktisk, at dette sørgelige, men ingenlunde enestående eksempel på (populær)videnskabelig (mis)information skyldes almindelig inkompetence hos reporteren eller hos de i den omtalte konference deltagende videnskabsmænd.

Men jeg må indrømme, at jeg frygter der kan være andre årsager til det udsendte røgslør, hvis det er det, vi har her.

Jeg gætter nemlig umiddelbart på, at den gjorte opdagelse i.t.v. har været umulig at kombinere med den herskende “afgudsdyrkelse” på universitetsfakulteterne de allerfleste steder. Nemlig det okkulte fantasteri om “the Big Bang”.

Og måske vil offentligheden først få nærmere og mere præcise oplysninger om hvad man har målt, når man hos naturvidenskabens ypperstepræster har kunnet enes om en (bort)forklaring af det målte, resp. har fået konstrueret en uforståelig og derfor ukontrollabel forklaring gående ud på, at Big Bang-overtroen endnu engang er bekræftet og bestyrket?

Lykkes dette ikke, vil måleresultaterne muligvis blive henlagt og glemt. Men hvis de her omhandlede videnskabsmænd ikke er sortekunstnere i en okkult videnskab, hvorfor er det så i givet fald nødvendigt at skjule måleresultaterne for den undrende almenhed?

For øvrigt må jeg erkende ikke at være bekendt med, hvorvidt der nu 8 år senere skulle være fremkommet afgørende nye oplysninger om mysteriet.


Her følger lidt om CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (fra http://www.cerntruth.com , hvis forfatter er den teoretiske fysiker Luis Sancho).

LUIS SANCHO – On himself: top of the world of systems sciences and cybernetics. IQ 180. But now 80% of my papers have been erased from Google scholars.

See my best work, ‘Absolute relativity: the 5th dimension’, at kindle
http://www.amazon.com/Information-dimension-Space-Time-Sciences-ebook/dp/B005SS6ZE4/ref=sr_1_13?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1354750506&sr=1-13 )

And on CERN science and scientists:

Cern is full of 20 something very smart who think because they have a ‘title’ and went through the industry of information they know a lot.

They are very smart. So smart that they will die from it. Because the Universe is NOT SMART BUT INTELLIGENT.

Smart people (try and) ‘cheat’ the laws of the Universe.

Those people are nuts, evil children, and they don’t even know they are.

Absolute evil = death is 1/2 of the Universe.

The two biggest infamous basterds of modern science, inventor of cybernetics and the H-bomb were obsessed with extinction.

They knew they were the parents of the two sciences, nuclear physics and robots that would kill us. They ONLY talked of THIS. It was their obsession.

Don’t you get it? It is all a moral question!! They know they can kill the planet, they don’t care.

They live off making weapons, they are nuclear scientists, they live with death.

When CERN crosses the so-called ‘bag number’ (number of strange quarks needed to coalescence into a strangelet) we shall die.


CERN is cosmic bomb, able to blow up stars and planets, the 3rd evolution of nuclear bombs after the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb.

(all from https://cerntruth.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/the-mayan-prophecy/ ) via


Læs mere her https://blocnotesimma.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/stella-nova-menneskehedens-farligste-terroristvaben-nogensinde/


To be crossposted on http://www.gamleboeger.dk and https://blocnotesimma.wordpress.com

Tweets på twitter.com/gamleboeger