Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 07:27:01 +0100

To: transpsych-l@asylum.org

From: Thomas.Jordan@geography.gu.se (Thomas.Jordan)

Subject: Essay: The mythic-rational mind

Hello fellow listmembers,

<snip>

I think one of the issues we won't reach agreement on is the role of the ego in consciousness development. Some feel that everything that strengthens the ego stands in the way of spiritual emergence, others feel that the establishment of an ego is an important step not to be ignored. In part the problem may be semantic, what the word "ego" signifies for us, but I think some very substantial differences would remain even if we could agree on definitions. I would like to contribute to this debate by giving a summary of some salient features of the mythic-rational consciousness structure. The point is that this structure is, in my interpretation, responsible for some of our worst social problems (intolerance, violent conflicts, fundamentalism, etc.), and that the establishment of a mature ego structure in more people is the most likely way out of those problems. The summary below draws on Wilber, Habermas, Kegan, Kohlberg, Loevinger, Neumann and others, but I am unable to sort out where I borrowed what. We all have our favourite topics. I persist in focussing on the lower end of the spectrum, so if you miss the transpersonal angle, just delete.

*******************************************

On the mythic-rational consciousness structure

I believe that a considerable share of the very serious political, social, and environmental problems of the contemporary world society is directly caused by the mythic-rational consciousness structure. Characteristic features of this structure permeate conventional norms, attitudes towards outgroups, foreign policies, and the contents of mass media. The mythic-rational structure is outright dangerous, probably more dangerous than any other consciousness structure, because of the combination of intolerance and self-righteousness with a mind capable of thinking strategically and acting manipulatively.

The individual identified with the mythic-rational structure is embedded in a collective. The I-feeling is attached to the roles, values, norms, and lifestyles supplied by the social environment. The mythic-rational person has yet to develop a firm ability to reflect in terms of universal principles beyond the conventions of the society in which he or she is living. This means that there is no independent platform from which the individual can observe cultural values, reflect upon them, and either accept them as one’s own, or replace them with other, self-evaluated values. The mythic-rational mind can only with great difficulty regard its own worldview as only one of many possible worldviews. The "cultural canon" supplied by the society of which one is a member is accepted as a part of the natural order, as truth. One has the choice of complying with the cultural canon, or of breaking the conventions, but not the choice of adopting an alternative set of values, because this requires a transcendence of the mythic-rational structure. A characteristic trait of the mythic-rational structure is the conviction that the beliefs and values of one’s own group ought to be adopted by all human beings. In the preceding mythical structure the world outside was largely irrelevant. But the mythic-rational structure can grasp such notions as historical time and vast spaces, and can envision how the outside world will be transformed according to a set of visions of how the world ought to be arranged. The collective identity, the we-feeling, is constricted to the adherents to one’s own belief system and/or one’s own ethnic or national group. Outsiders are not accorded the status of fully equal human beings. Human rights and empathy are contingent upon group membership. Social interactions within the ingroup also suffer from deficits in terms of democracy in a deeper sense. In a conflict of interests, the mythic-rational mind can only with a great effort look at its own position and the position of the other from a decentered perspective (from the outside), and resolve the differences through a simultaneous consideration of all standpoints involved. This entails a propensity to fall into dominance/obedience relationships in social interactions: either my perspective prevails, or yours (win-lose). The lack of a firm sense of having a self-evaluated value system makes the mythic-rational individual extremely susceptible to group values. A group made up of mythic-rational members can very easily derail completely if led by a destructive leader. This happens regularly in ethnic conflicts and in racist and other authoritarian movements. The members of such groups are not necessarily driven by strong destructive impulses, but they have no personal ethical principles which could guide them into refusing to go along with destructive acts. They may therefore very easily fall prey to the addictive thrill of experiencing power when victimizing others. The conventional values about the right life occupies an important place in the motivational structure of the mythic-rational person. Individuals are strongly identified with social roles, i.e. with what the Jungians call the persona. Being successful in living up to the conventional expectations built into these roles is an important value. Many mythic-rational persons regard the achievement of personal fame as the ultimate goal. On a collective level the propagation of group belief and values, as well as the aggrandizement of the group/nation, permeate interaction with outgroups. The cognitive world of a mythic-rational mind has difficulties in embracing complex and contradictory contents. Coherence of the worldview is achieved by massive dissociation and projection. The mythic-rational individual therefore tends to draw very firm and divisive boundaries between right and wrong, good and evil, inside and outside, we and them. That which is alien, deviant, discomforting, or threatening is promptly assigned to the outside, where it can be condemned and kept at a proper distance. A lot of energy is absorbed in maintaining the division between inside and outside, and the result is individuals and cultures living in a state of permanent conflict. Now, what makes the mythic-rational structure increasingly dangerous in the contemporary society is that the social fabric supporting mythic-rational individuals is disintegrating rapidly. This is partly due to the development of the mental structure, which revolts against conventional morals and rigid and constricted lifestyles. However, as the firm conformist norms lose their authority, a lot of individuals have not yet developed individual values that could guide them into a socially responsible way of life. With no external structures to hold them, they slide into delinquency, rampant egocentric pursuance of desires, or get caught up in authoritarian movements.

From this background, I would argue that the development of a mature ego is a good and necessary process. A firm sense of distinctness from the collective is a crucial step in transcending the mythic-rational world of group egoism, intolerance, and zealousness. If the mythic-rational individual lets go of the budding ego, the result is not transcendence, but regression into impulsivity or to a group-mind mentality. Traditional morality even plays a constructive role in the mythic-rational structure, since it provides a support for a reasonably benign social behaviour to individuals that lack an internal system of values. Real transcendence of the ego requires the availability of a platform for consciousness beyond the ego. Development of such a platform enables us to let go of an exclusive identification with the ego and its desires, wishes, goals.

Thomas Jordan