Mind Field

IV. Towards an Ideological Theory of Cognition

In future chapters we will discuss Ideological Theory of Cognition within a Larger Worldview, but for now will continue.

However neuroscientists, biochemists and others might break it down into its elements, aspects, or facets, the attempt to gain an understanding of the mind as a whole, I believe, involves more than just the study of the physical and chemical mechanisms underlying this phenomenon, or of the functioning of particular regions of the brain, or of particular subsets of the mental process. The subjective experience of consciousness itself must also be addressed. Since all thought is inherently subjective, its study–to my way of thinking at least–should form the apex of any attempt to comprehend the way the mind works. There are a number of pitfalls associated with the subjective mind trying to comprehend the nature of subjectivity itself, but such an endeavor must be attempted, I maintain, or else the task of trying to understand the mind would be incomplete.

Perhaps the most serious problem in dealing with subjectivity is that different people can approach the topic from different perspectives, each seemingly plausible, and it is difficult to subject such approaches to the same type of rigor as one could when dealing with some isolated aspect of mental function. There may never be a perfect solution, but as more attention is focused on this area one should expect a new set of criteria to emerge to judge the relative worth of the methods being used, and that the approach or approaches which are deemed to most closely approximate the way the mind actually operates will eventually come to be accepted by a general consensus of the relevant fields.

The path that I myself have taken has led me to the conclusion that the particular ideas someone holds–and the ways those ideas are structured within the mind–are of decisive importance in determining the cognition, or way of thinking, of that particular individual; my germ of a theory involves the notion that one’s internalized systems of thought serve as the foundations of one’s consciousness and bend the world into a shape that makes sense to them. I refer to the type of cognitive theory based on such a set of assumptions as an “ideological theory of cognition.”

A. Show and tell

How should one go about studying subjectivity?

The world is full of natural laboratories that cannot possibly be reproduced by human beings. When Darwin went to the Galapagos, he encountered things there that pointed his mind to things that he had seen elsewhere, but not as clearly. He later spent years sorting through the details of what he had seen on his journeys, yet the foundations of his insight into the evolution of species were laid in places like the Galapagos, where circumstances led to the existence of phenomena which made the underlying principles evident to his mind. Of course, it should never be lost sight of that the mind doing the observing is also a critical factor in the equation. Many others before and after Darwin also saw many of the things that he did and yet did not make the conceptual breakthrough that he made. A mind must be “predisposed,” as it were, by training or interest, in order for the facts presented by circumstances to be bent into the “proper” shape.

There are also natural laboratories when it comes to social phenomena. Among them, I believe, are some which can help throw light on the fundamental principles underlying human thought and behavior, for those so inclined to utilize them in this way. I list below a sample of these, which can be thought of as social manifestations associated with certain ways of thinking.

1. Religious institutions

Some of the best of these natural laboratories, in my opinion, are religious institutions. Especially in countries with a broad diversity of beliefs, like the U.S., they are a truly valuable resource. The principle of universal toleration which exists in this country enables the student to move freely from one to another with few restrictions, and with the proper tact, the most probing of questions can be asked of its members. In addition, a huge quantity of literature is available, including both official writing by insiders as well as material written about the institutions by outsiders.

So what is someone supposed to be looking for? That depends on the level of knowledge of the person doing the looking. As is the case with all social phenomena, religious thought and behavior is a multi-faceted thing. Someone encountering it for the first time will likely learn something different from it than someone who already has some background knowledge of the tradition in question. Often, people will be surprised (and perhaps shocked) by many things they encounter at first contact with a new belief system, and their curiosity might lead them to read something about it, or to ask questions. Upon further contact, they might notice new things that they hadn’t before; this in turn might lead to a new set of questions.

When trying to learn something about a religious institution, there are a number of resources that can be tapped into. One of these is its basic doctrine and “official” history. Since one of the main “functions” of the institution is the teaching of these very things, it is not necessary to look very hard to find material on these topics. Whatever type of clergy you encounter, it will be their job to present this subject to their members (or those seeking to be members) by some means or other. There are exceptions, as when a particular doctrine restricts certain knowledge to a select few, but for the most part, participating in the most ordinary activities of the church (or whatever it is called) is also one of the best ways to learn some of its most important “secrets.”

The opinions and activities of the rank-and-file membership is another useful source of information. Much about how an official doctrine is actually implemented can only be learned through contact with those in the “trenches,” as it were.

Of course, writings by sources outside the faith, whether sociological, historical, or polemical, can add to one’s understanding of the phenomenon. As long as direct observation of, and interaction with, the materials and members of a variety of religious institutions is not neglected, these outside sources should be utilized as deemed appropriate.

2. Political organizations

Other good natural laboratories are political organizations. Much like with religious institutions, many of these are associated with well-articulated doctrines.

I would recommend that the more radical, fanatical (at least from a Western democratic perspective) and violent political movements should be the ones that the student explore first. Among other reasons, they offer a sharp contrast to what most are familiar with, and can help to make clear the wide range in thinking patterns that is possible among human beings. Unlike the ease with which one can freely examine most contemporary religious institutions in pluralistic societies–essentially by just walking right in and sitting right down–many of these types of political organizations are best studied at a distance: membership is often highly restricted, and dangerous to boot. Once a level of familiarity for the “extremes” of political thought has been achieved, then the more mundane varieties might be seen in a new light.

In my opinion, the best place to start with the more radical organizations is to get ahold of some of the writings of their founders or leaders. Oftentimes news reports on statements by these groups regarding their policies or guiding principles are distorted (mostly unintentionally). Reporters or editors often don’t understand their (often very complex) systems of thought very well, and so tend to select quotes or summarize stated positions or written material rather poorly. This is why it is best to try to obtain the writings of the insiders themselves. News reports are usually more reliable when it comes to facts regarding their activities, which are less subject to editorializing or commentary. These writings, together with a chronology of their activities, is often sufficient, I believe, to enable one to make reasonable inferences about how members of these organizations really think.

One problem is that, while much of the writings of contemporary radical political organizations may be available in the library, some might be kept hidden from all but the most senior members of those organizations. Only later–when and if these writings fall into the hands of outsiders–can we use them to help us figure out what they were thinking. For this reason, historical material can often be the most useful.

Revolutions and wars are among the worst experiences that populations can suffer, but such tragedies are also research opportunities for those so inclined to see them that way. In the same way that plagues and epidemics–horrible though they may be for those who suffer through them–offer biological scientists learning opportunities that they would not otherwise have had, so these social and historical calamities offer similar possibilities to social scientists.

Specifically, the Russian Revolution and the Second World War are two recent events of this kind. With the fall of the Iron Curtain, many documents are now available that can throw new light on the thoughts and actions of those involved in leadership positions of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its satellites, and which complement those writings already available from the principal figures that shaped that ideology. Even more valuable are the documents captured at the end of the Second World War from the archives of Nazi Germany. These have the advantage of being a more complete record of the regime, and also of being available to the world’s scholars for more than fifty years. The process of the Nuremberg trials and subsequent proceedings has also contributed to the wide dissemination of these documents, and the continuing fascination on the part of the general public with this era has ensured that ample scholarly material is available to the interested student.

How one might go about studying those political organizations associated with democratic societies would depend, in my view, upon a number of factors, including what insight one has gained into the nature of subjectivity from the study of these more radical varieties. Certainly, one can study these more democratically-oriented organizations “up-close and personal,” as it were, since they are relatively safe and open to the public. It should be noted, though, that individual members may not be expected to subscribe to the organization’s entire set of stated principles, and may in fact be in agreement on only one or a few key issues. This factor may make such organizations and the people who belong to them harder to understand, but I believe that it can also serve to bring to one’s attention something of the complexity involved in human thought and social behavior, making this type of organization an especially useful natural laboratory.

3. Academic establishments

If the wide variety of ways of thinking to be found among participants in religious and political organizations makes for an abundant harvest (so to speak) of material for anyone trying to gain insight into what subjectivity is and how it works, then the standardized techniques used to convey the subject matter being taught and learned in our educational establishments makes for easy pickings. The fact that classes are designed to teach the same material to each student, and to test what has been learned, means that the student of subjectivity has a number of experimental controls ready-made and waiting to be used to make the job simpler; that the subject matter being taught is an open book (quite literally), for instance, allows one to make certain simplifying assumptions regarding who is being exposed to which ideas and in what order.

There is remarkably easy access to institutions of higher learning in democratic societies: Someone could sign up to audit a few courses, or even just attend a few lectures here and there. If one knows what one is looking for, this is an easy place to find it.

4. The street

Beyond the more specific and localized examples given above, there remains the street. By this I mean the particular social or cultural environment one happens to be surrounded by at any given place and time. I think that the more one has learned about subjectivity from the types of natural laboratories mentioned above, the better one will be able to appreciate the possibilities of learning from whatever external circumstances present themselves. This is perhaps the ultimate natural laboratory because it is where people from a number of different backgrounds and experiences meet and interact with each other; the interaction of people with such varied perspectives has led to the development of a variety of different types of social practices and relationships.

How someone might go about studying this will depend in large part upon his or her prior experiences, and what methods and techniques one has been able to develop from them; when someone gets to the point of seeing wherever they are as being a natural laboratory, they will have to find their own star to guide them.