Mind Field

II. Systems of Thought

As a way of explaining what I mean when I use the term “system of thought” within Foundations of Consciousness, I have selected a few expressions of some which have been widely-held and for which we have extensive written records. Those which have been less widely-held and/or those for which written records are less extensive or non-existent are equally real, but they would not be as useful for illustrative purposes.

I have somewhat arbitrarily classified these examples into four categories: Mythology, Theology, Philosophy and Scientific Knowledge. These categories should not be construed as being either exhaustive or definitive; any number of additional categories could be conceived, and others could classify the examples given below in any number of different ways.

It is my contention that the ordered nature one can attribute to the concepts to which these expressions seem to refer reflects the ordered nature of the cognitive processes which can be inferred as having given rise to them, and that one can gain insight into the way ideas are organized within the mind by studying these types of artifacts.

A. Mythology

Among mythologies of the ancient world, that of the Greeks is the most widely known to the general public. But there are many others which are also fascinating expressions of the way people used to think about the world. Each has something unique to offer towards our understanding of that particular culture, and collectively they all have much to offer towards our understanding of human thought in general.

I think that most all mythologies that we are aware of have some sort of origin myth as a foundation to the rest of the stories. These origin stories tell of how the world, life, people, and perhaps everything else came to be, or came to be as they are now; who or what is responsible for it all; and to whom or what we should refer when dealing with the fundamental questions and problems of existence, as well as the procedure by which this is to be done.

I offer as an example a summary of an origin myth from ancient Sumer, a civilization that once inhabited the fertile region of Southern Mesopotamia about 3000 B.C., before the coming of the Babylonian Empire. In it, the universe (as we call it today) was formed by the actions of various gods and goddesses. In this case (the records being fragmentary), it seems that Nammu, the sea, gave birth to heaven, personified by the god An, and earth, personified by the goddess Ki; from An and Ki came the air god Enlil, who separated them, leading to a universe of heaven and earth separated by air. Where the sea came from is not explained. All of the oldest mythologies that I know of which deal with the origin of the cosmos tell of a universe brought into a state of order from an original state of chaos, or from some preexisting state. Only later is the idea of a creation out of nothing mentioned in writings pertaining to origins.

The Babylonian civilization, which occupied the same region plus central and northern Mesopotamia about 1500 years later, had a different version of the creation story. In it, the primeval condition was when nothing existed except Apsu, the sweet-water ocean, and Tiamat, the salt-water ocean. From their union came a number of generations of gods, leading to Anu, the sky god, and Ea, the earth and water god, who was also the god of wisdom and the source of all magic. The son of Ea was Marduk, the hero of the tale. Before he was born there was a conflict among the gods. Tiamat and Apsu, disturbed by the noise of the younger gods, planned to destroy them; instead, learning of their plans, Ea managed to kill Apsu. Tiamat, continuing the war, raised an army of monsters and set out to destroy Ea and his allies. Ea and then Anu failed in their attempts to thwart this plan, and so then Marduk was enlisted for this task, first being given supreme authority over the other gods. He challenged Tiamat to single combat, killed her, and split her body in two, making the sky out of one half and the earth out of the other.

In the North, the Norse mythology of ancient Scandinavia gives us yet another version. There, we find not a primordial sea but a yawning chasm. To the north of it was Niflheim, the cold realm of death, and to the south was Muspelheim, the land of fire. From Niflheim flowed twelve rivers which poured into the chasm and froze there, slowly filling it with ice. From Muspelheim came clouds of fire which melted the ice into a mist. From the mist fell drops of water which formed the Frost Maidens and the first Giant, Ymir. Odin was Ymir’s grandson, and he and his brothers killed Ymir and made the earth from his body, the sea from his blood, and the heavens from his skull.

Another important type of creation story most all mythologies seem to have is the tale of how and why human beings came into existence. These are especially useful in order to guide one toward an understanding of what role people play in the grand scheme of things (according to that viewpoint) and what the relationship is between the gods and mortals.

According to Babylonian myth, people were created as a convenience for the gods: to collect food for them and to perform menial tasks associated with the temple ritual, thereby freeing themselves of these chores. They were formed from the blood of Kingu, son of Tiamat and the defeated leader of her army, who was slain for that purpose after he was captured and bound by Marduk.

In Greek myth, there are different accounts of the creation of mankind; in one, man was created by Prometheus (whose name means forethought). Prometheus was a Titan who sided with Zeus and the gods in the war with the Titans, and was said to be wiser than the gods themselves. Prometheus took earth and water and formed man in the image of the gods, standing him upright in contrast to the other animals so that he could gaze up at the heavens instead of down at the earth; Athena then breathed life into the images.

His task was not only the creation of man, but also to provide him and the other animals with the qualities and skills that would enable them to survive in the world. Prometheus entrusted his brother, Epimetheus (whose name means afterthought) with this job, which he would review when completed. Unfortunately, as his name implies, Epimetheus did not think ahead, and by the time he got to man, he found that all the best gifts had already been given away to the animals: strength, swiftness, courage, sharp teeth, claws, warm fur, and the like. He turned to his brother for help, and Prometheus, with the aid of the goddess Athena, went up to heaven and brought back fire from the chariot of the sun. This more than balanced the scales. With fire man could stay warm in winter, keep away dangerous beasts, and make tools and weapons.

The creation of woman is another story. It seems that Zeus was not pleased that Prometheus had stolen fire from heaven to give to man. In addition, Prometheus tricked Zeus into accepting the worst part of the animals to be sacrificed to the gods, with man getting to keep the best share for himself. He did this by cutting up an ox and hiding the meat within the hide and covering it up further with the entrails, while in another pile putting all the bones under a shiny layer of fat. When Zeus chose between them, he chose the disguised pile of bones. Angry at being tricked, he determined to punish both Prometheus and man.

For mankind, the “reward” was the first woman, Pandora, which means “the gift of all.” From her was descended all other women, who have plagued mankind ever since (according to the myth, that is). She was made in heaven, with each of the gods and goddesses giving her something to perfect her: from Aphrodite beauty, from Hermes eloquence, from the three Graces the power of captivating, and so on. They also gave her a box, into which each had put a harmful thing, and told her not to open it. She was then presented to Epimetheus, who accepted her, against the advice of Prometheus. One day, her curiosity got the better of her, and she opened the lid of the box to see what was inside. Out came all the sorrows and miseries that have ever since afflicted the human race. She quickly shut the lid, but it was too late. One good thing came out of the box, though: it was hope, some say put into the box by Athena. With hope, people are able to go on in spite of all their suffering and hardships.

Zeus reserved an especially cruel fate for Prometheus. He was chained to a rock, where an eagle would visit him each day to eat at his liver, which would then grow back at night.

There are a number of other types of myths which deal with a variety of aspects of the life experience and the human condition. Among them are those which served as the conceptual foundations of particular rituals that would be performed on a regular basis and that would involve various classes of the population to various degrees, and those which carried with them some sort of moral lesson which was expected to be reflected in people’s values and behavior, to name just a couple.

While the myths and legends of a particular ancient civilization can be very revealing in and of themselves as to the viewpoints of those who believed in them, it should be noted that these stories should not be understood in isolation; what survives today are only fragmentary expressions of whole systems of beliefs and practices that permeated their respective societies. It is, unfortunately, impossible to go back and resurrect these civilizations in order to learn exactly how their myths and legends fit into and helped to shape their cultures as a whole; fortunately, we can learn a lot about how they may have functioned by studying their modern counterparts.

B. Theology

There are many definitions as to what is theology, what is philosophy, what is religion, what is mythology, and so on. Seeing as how, as I mentioned above, my entire classification scheme is somewhat arbitrary in the first place, my dividing line between what is mythology and what is theology can be fuzzy at times. My general rule of thumb is to call something a theology if it is made up of more-or-less systematically-organized statements regarding the nature of some deity or of some supernatural realm; if it is a collection of stories concerned with these things, I tend to call it mythology. Many religions, therefore, contain elements of both (at least according to these criteria).

As my first example I’d like to draw the attention of the reader to the ancient religion of the Persians, Zoroastrianism (which, incidentally, still exists today, mainly in Iran and India). Its theology involves the concept of two supernatural beings, one good and the other bad, and of the struggle between them. In fact, the whole destiny of the universe is really the manifestation of this struggle. On one side is the good god, Ahura Mazda, also call Ormazd, and on the other is the evil one, Angra Mainyu, also called Ahriman. All beings in the universe are involved in this contest, on one side or the other. Unlike the deities of some other faiths, Ahura Mazda is not omnipotent. He needs the active participation of his allies to win the final victory. As a result, good deeds are rewarded and evil ones cannot be overlooked or forgiven. If one does evil in this world, thereby aiding the spirit of darkness, then one must make up for this by doing an excess of good to compensate, or one will suffer punishment after death.

Another feature of this religion is that the god of light, Ahura Mazda, is pure good without any mixture of evil, while Angra Mainyu is the reverse. Anything bad that happens in the world is the doing of Angra Mainyu. Ahura Mazda creates only good things. He therefore avoids the theological problems and embarrassing questions that other, omnipotent deities have run into for not destroying evil even though they have the power to do so: He’s doing the best he can. There is also the strong moral compulsion for his followers to do as much good as possible, for thereby they hasten the day when the inevitable victory of light over darkness will come, and reduce the suffering and evil that the world has to endure along the way.

In contrast to Zoroastrianism is Christianity. The Christian religion has many different sects, but there ARE certain theological doctrines common to most of them, such as those that deal with the very nature of God. Unlike the Zoroastrian idea of a warring pair of gods, in Christianity there is only one, although it is a trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is very complex, but in simple terms–since any lengthy exposition on my part would probably fail to capture all the theological nuances anyway–we can say that there is one God in three persons.

Also unlike Zoroastrianism, the Christian God is both omnipotent and good, which leads directly to the theological problem avoided by Ahura Mazda: How are we to account for evil in the world? Most Christian denominations do it by reference to the doctrine of original sin. In brief, this doctrine is that God created the world in a state of perfection, but due to the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, evil came into the world. This doctrine is closely related to the doctrine of salvation, which sets out the plan by which this original sin is to be set right, and involves the reason for and the significance of the death and resurrection of the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. The traditional view is that the death of Christ was an atonement in some way for the sins of humanity, in the manner of the ancient Jewish practice of sacrificing an unblemished lamb to atone for the sins of Israel.

Another difference between Christianity and Zoroastrianism concerns the concept of grace. Because the Christian God is omnipotent and the atonement so complete, salvation is not earned by Christians but is given as a gift. It only needs to be accepted as such and believed in. In fact, the idea that good works has anything to do with one’s salvation is vociferously denied, especially by those of the Protestant tradition. In Roman Catholicism, one source of grace is through the sacraments administered by the priests, but it is still ultimately a gift from God. With the acceptance of this gift, according to the Protestant doctrine of sanctification, the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, comes into the believer and indwells within them (in Roman Catholicism, this is achieved by the receiving of grace through the sacraments). That person then becomes a new person (at least before God), and all is forgiven. With Zoroastrianism, since the two warring gods are not omnipotent, every good or bad deed has a real effect on the course of the struggle, and therefore forgiveness is not so easy. The result is that each faith tends to lead its followers to a different outlook with respect to moral values. In one, doing good is an outward expression of a changed inner nature, while in the other it is the price one must pay for personal salvation.

One could go on to cite many more differences, and many similarities, between the theology of these two religions, or indeed of any two religions. Whether we are talking about Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, or any number of others, each has its own particular set (or sets) of statements regarding the nature of the divine and of our place in the universe. The concepts referred to by these statements do not appear to be random and disjointed (at least for the most part), but seem to form systematic frameworks.

C. Philosophy

When it comes to the definition of philosophy and what to include and exclude from this class of thinking, I prefer to leave this to others; there is a lively debate on this issue going on within the published literature in this field, and as I believe this is as good a source as any for one to gain some insight into the character and scope of what philosophy is, I would refer the reader to such published works (such as, for instance, introductory philosophy texts or dictionaries of philosophy).

What is the nature of the questions that philosophers ask and seek to answer? Historically, the field is divided up into several branches: logic, which is the study of sound reasoning or argument; metaphysics, which is the attempt to characterize or explain reality as a whole; epistemology, which is the study of knowledge itself; ethics, which is the study of good and bad and moral standards; and aesthetics, which is the study of art and beauty.

As an introduction to this rich and varied tradition, I offer the following examples:

Plato (c. 427-347 B.C.) was a student of Socrates. His basic view of reality was that it consisted of an Ideal Reality (eternal and transcendent) as well as a Phenomenal Reality (those actual things made of matter). For him, the everyday things of the material world are merely manifestations of the ideal Forms, and are locked in the limitations of time and space. The tangible objects of the phenomenal world are perceived by the senses, while the intangible ideal Forms (Ideas) of the “real” world are conceived by the mind. The ideal Forms themselves are self-motivated, while the imperfect reflections of them are created with the purpose of their seeking to imitate their counterparts in the ideal world. Thus, the imperfect world of the phenomenal is in the process of striving to reach the perfection of the ideal world.

Plato’s theory of Forms or Ideas also extended to his view of God, which he understood as the supreme good, the highest and most perfect reality. He was conceived as having created the universe out of pre-existing matter using the eternal Ideas as a blueprint. The soul of every object, including man, is its Idea, and it is that which gives it its goodness, beauty and purpose. After death, the ideal Form of the person returns to the ideal realm, which is the true reality. His views on ethics were consistent with his views about the nature of reality: The soul of a person, being an ideal Form, strives for the ideal good, but the imperfections of this world are an impediment; perfection will gradually be achieved in the next life, when it is free of this phenomenal reality.

Another influential philosopher who lived about the same time was Democritus (c. 460-370 B.C.). In marked contrast to Plato, he was a materialist. That means that he believed that the universe was made only of material objects, which he called “atoms” (though he wasn’t the first to do so). For him, there was no “ideal realm” where Forms or Ideas or other supernatural objects existed, only natural objects available to the senses. His basic view of the nature of reality (ontology) was reflected in his view of the nature of knowledge (epistemology), as is the case with most all philosophers who have managed to build and put into words coherent systems of thought dealing with both these topics.

For Plato, sense experience provides us with only knowledge of the imperfect phenomenal reality. True knowledge of the eternal Forms is obtained by reason alone. The theory was that the soul, being part of that ideal world, and therefore eternal, must have knowledge of that realm which it acquired before it was united with the body. Through a proper disciplined method of thought, which he called “dialectic” (a term also used by Socrates for his method of argument and also much used in later philosophy by a variety of others in their own systems), a person could recollect some of that knowledge of the eternal Forms.

Democritus, though, didn’t believe in innate ideas. For him, sense experience was the way in which the mind obtained knowledge about reality. He viewed sense experience as unreliable, though, since he observed that people exposed to the same sense experience would have different opinions as to the truth it revealed about the world. Reason was also necessary to reach absolute truth, and reason was a function of the mind, which was composed of atoms; he attributed the function of thought to the motion of what he called “fire atoms.” Like Plato, he divided knowledge into dual spheres: that of the phenomenal world of appearances and the metaphysical or ontological world of absolute reality. In contrast to him, Democritus understood this absolute reality as being the true essences of the actual material objects before him, rather than ideal objects in some eternal sphere of existence.

Throughout the history of philosophy, fundamental questions like these have been the stuff of debate, argument and speculation. As with the case of theological ideas, mentioned above, the concepts being expressed seem (at least to me) to be organized in a more-or-less logically coherent and systematic way.

D. Scientific knowledge

The term “scientific method” is an abstraction that people use to describe the process (or processes) that those people we call “scientists” employ to discover what we refer to as “scientific knowledge.” Now, for those who might imagine that this is just a semantic dance, we must recall that genes really are being manipulated, atoms really are being split, and light from distant galaxies really is being collected and analyzed. We may have to invent terms to describe what is going on, but what is going on is very real. The category of scientific knowledge is included here so as to stress the point that systems of thought are comprised not only of speculative or otherworldly concepts, but also those of a more empirical and pragmatic nature.

However defined, there IS a set (or sets, if you prefer) of statements (including equations) regarding the nature of the physical universe which is commonly referred to as scientific knowledge. It is divided into a number of particular disciplines, and within those disciplines it is further subdivided. Whether one believes that a particular scientific theory or hypothesis is true or false, I believe that even a cursory examination of the subject will bear out the fact that the concepts which these statements express are organized in a systematic way.