Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 13:16:03 +0100

To: ken-wilber-l@listserv.azstarnet.com

From: Thomas Jordan <Thomas.Jordan@redcap.econ.gu.se>

Subject: Mythic-rational mode

Thanks for the contributions on mythic-rational and rational societies.

The concept of mythic-rational thinking derives, I think, from Jürgen Habermas' work. Basically it is, as John wrote, a transitional phase. Mythic thinking is increasingly rationalized, because people are no longer satisfied with literal belief in fixed myths. Instead, they start using their growing capacities for rational reasoning to build rational arguments justifying the beliefs. The most important aspect of mythic-rational thinking is that it is based on some basic assumptions which are never called into question. Rationality is not applied to the fundamental beliefs, but only to the relations between given variables.

In the new age movement there is a lot of mythic-rational thinking. People adopt some beliefs that "feel right", and organize their values and reasoning around those beliefs. In Frank's interview with KW, there is a passage on hatemail from readers of the New Age Journal (?) who firmly believes that people who get cancer has caused it themselves (without exception). This belief is not open to an open-ended investigation, but is defended against any criticism with vehemence and acidity.

Mythic-rational thinkers are unable to use general principles to examine their belief systems. What they hold as truth is not open to reconsideration. They can't stand to compare different worldviews and explore what evidence, internal consistency problems, etc. there are. Also, they don't spontaneously reflect on possible inconsistencies between different sets of beliefs they hold (a further sign of incomplete rationalization).

The institutionalized values and rules in modern societies are firmly rational, but many individuals are not. It may be tricky, because one can have a mythic-rational interpretation of rational principles, e.g. in a blind belief in the superiority of the ideals of democracy and justice of Western civilization. In a sense, this is exactly what I'm going to study in the coming two years, in the form of an interview-based study on Swedish defense policies, and how they are interpreted by the people who are supposed to implement the policies. The official stance is firmly rational, or worldcentric, but I'm not so sure about most individuals involved.

The tests for developmental level that have been extensively used don't explicitly test for mythic-rational thinking. However, results of many studies indicate that the majority of the population in the USA are somewhere in transition from mythic-rational to rational.

Concerning Ozguc's mention of the Gulf crisis, I don't think one can make a global stage score of such a complex event. You have to look at how the decision-makers interpret the situation and how they justify their actions. They may be thorougly rational. Rationality is no guarantee for doing what is good, right and beautiful . . . Richard Nixon justified the bombings in Vietnam by referring to the need to defend each people's right to self-determination. I think he sincerely believed he belonged to the moral elite of the world history, and that his basic *values* were formally worldcentric. He may have been unable to reflect on the consistency between those values and the results of his policies, though. I don't know. I think it is very difficult to draw firm boundaries between mythic-rational and rational thinking when looking at real living people acting in very complex historical situations.

Thomas

Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 15:55:34 +0100

To: ken-wilber-l@listserv.azstarnet.com

From: Thomas Jordan <Thomas.Jordan@redcap.econ.gu.se>

Subject: Re: Mythic-rational mode

[snip]

I think an interesting question is how it is possible to be very intelligent, in spite of narrowmindedness. Bill Torbert makes an interesting distinction between "Technicians" and "Achievers". The former masters a particular system, such as a craft, a task environment, or a particular field of knowledge, but is unable to evaluate the effectiveness of this limited system in terms of how well it serves more general purposes (beyond the system itself). The "Achiever" is capable of seeing the need to reform the way the craft is managed if the results are unsatisfying. The "Achiever" can relate the limited system to the world outside the system, and reflect on the interaction between, say, the conventional way of doing things, and the ultimate purposes for doing it.

So, you can be very intelligent in terms of mastering a specific set of tasks, a specific set of ideas and theories, but still be unable to consider other perspectives. As long as circumstances don't force you to consider the environment, everything looks great. For example, you can be an expert in increasing the productivity and profitability of a manufacturing plant, but be totally lost when noone wants to buy your products because you are polluting the environment.

Thomas