Cadmus v2 I6 History Mind Civilization Gjacobs Reprint
Cadmus v2 I6 History Mind Civilization Gjacobs Reprint
Cadmus v2 I6 History Mind Civilization Gjacobs Reprint
net/publication/318876673
CITATIONS READS
6 2,062
1 author:
Garry Jacobs
The World Academy of Art and Science
70 PUBLICATIONS 387 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG) and the World Academy of Art and Science (WAAS) - Global Leadership for the 21st Century View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Garry Jacobs on 03 August 2017.
Abstract
The rational mind is the highest evolved status of human consciousness. The evolution of
mind and civilization has proceeded hand in hand for millennia. The development of new
capacities of mind made possible the development of tools, language, agriculture, permanent
settlements, towns, cities, religion, trade, transportation, communication, government, law,
money, literature and the arts, education, nation states, scientific and technological research.
So too, each stage in the development of civilization has shaped the evolution of the human
mind and its faculties and the way they are applied in life. The limits to our knowledge and
accomplishment reflect limits to our rationality and the utilization of our mental potential.
Our knowledge consists of fragmented, piecemeal, compartmentalized theories, when the
reality we seek to understand is inclusive, complex and integrated. Our conceptions are
based on mechanistic, static, inflexible equilibrium models, whereas the world we live in
is alive, dynamic, organic, conscious, responsive, creative and continuously evolving.
Our science assumes the poise of an impartial observer of objective reality, whereas all
knowledge without exception is colored by the subjective perspective of the observer. Our
science strives to be neutral and value-free, whereas the knowledge we need should help
us realize universal values. We need to evolve ways of thinking that reunite the objective
and subjective dimensions of reality and reflect the integrality, dynamism and vibrancy of
evolutionary nature. That is the challenge and adventure before us.
1. The Paradox
The advance of knowledge over the past two centuries has been awe-inspiring. Our
understanding of the physical universe and our own evolutionary past now extends millions
of light years across the universe and billions of years back in time. Our capacity to measure
and process data, transmit and disseminate facts, formulate new concepts and ideas, discover
and invent, organize and educate, create and imagine, and harness the forces of Nature for
human ends has multiplied exponentially.
Knowledge is power and never before has humanity known so much about the world in
which we live. Yet never before have we faced challenges of such unparalleled magnitude
and complexity, which defy solution by existing knowledge. Our progress has had unintended
consequences. Efforts to develop a truly global civilization on the foundations of science and
technology have been accompanied by rising levels of economic insecurity, political turmoil,
social unrest, displaced populations and environmental instability. Our economic system
71
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
72
A Brief History of Mind and Civilization Garry Jacobs
being.2 For the past five years WAAS has been promoting initiatives to foster new thinking on
human-centered economic theory, on a conceptual framework for a comprehensive paradigm
for human development encompassing all dimensions of social existence, on basic principles
of a transdisciplinary, integrated, value-based science of society, and on the unique catalytic
role of the individual in social development.3,*
The second conclusion from this research is that the present crises are a result of the
current distribution of social power in the world. Theoretical knowledge of society is
incomplete so long as it fails to comprehend the way in which social power is generated and
distributed. Social power refers to the cumulative capacity of society to accomplish whatever
goals it aspires for. Never before has humanity possessed so much power—power to interact,
communicate, exchange, transport, produce, discover, invent, educate, experiment, prolong
life, entertain and enjoy. Yet never before has the distribution of social power and its fruits
been as uneven and inequitable as it is today. At a time when society possesses more than
sufficient capacity to ensure sufficient food, clothing, housing, education and health care to
meet the needs of all human beings, billions of people still struggle for bare survival. Existing
social institutions and policies have failed to remedy the situation and existing economic and
political theories largely ignore this underlying problem. This has led WAAS to initiate an
inquiry into the theoretical and historical origins and determinants of social power.4
Third, and most importantly, this research has led to the conclusion that all these causes
are themselves founded on a more fundamental cause arising from the way modern society
has developed the faculties of the human mind. The crises confronting civilization today are
rooted in the way we use our minds—in the way we think.5,6,7
2. Mind
The basic premise of this paper is that the course of human civilization has been the
result of fundamental evolutionary advances in development of the human mind, its faculties
and powers for knowledge and conscious action. The central thesis is that the dilemma
confronting civilization in the 21st century reflects inherent limitations in the specific way in
which modern civilization utilizes the powers of mind; namely, that the present combination
of analytic and systems thinking in concert with mathematics and the scientific method
is inadequate to comprehend and effectively deal with the root causes and complexity of
the challenges we face. Moreover, the institutional and social authority presiding over the
present intellectual framework has itself become a major impediment to the formulation of
more effective knowledge, particularly in the human sciences. The central conclusion of the
paper is that we need to consciously strive to enhance our understanding of the characteristic
ways in which we think, to increase our awareness of the inherent limitations and blind
spots generated by those characteristics, and to develop the capacity to think creatively in a
more comprehensive and integrated manner outside the confines of the existing conceptual
framework.
* See World Academy of Art & Science project site on New Paradigm http://www.worldacademy.org/new-paradigm?quicktabs_new_paradigm_
main=0#quicktabs-new_paradigm_main
73
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
74
A Brief History of Mind and Civilization Garry Jacobs
it. A major source of this complexity is the fact that our existence contains both objective
and subjective dimensions—the world around us and the world of conscious awareness
and activity within ourselves. These two complementary dimensions sometimes develop in
tandem and sometimes in apparent opposition to one another—subjective belief claiming
sovereignty over our knowledge of the material world or apparent material fact dictating
the terms of reality for our psychological self-experience. The history of civilization seems
to fluctuate between these extremes, reacting periodically to restore the balance. Thus, a
narrative of mind and civilization is a dance between our inner and outer worlds.
Another complicating factor is that we live and act on three planes of existence. Apart
from sensations, actions and events that occur in the physical plane, human beings are
aware and act simultaneously in life or vital plane in which we perceive, relate, interact
and react nervously and emotionally with our environment and with other people. We also
exist in a mental plane of facts, thoughts, opinions and ideas in which we observe, conceive,
understand, create and decide. The evolution of mind occurs simultaneously in all these three
planes. As civilization transits through different stages or phases of development, it also
undergoes shifts in the relative emphasis it places on each of them. Ancient Indian culture
organized its thought and life around spiritual truths. Hellenic culture centered on the mind
and its conceptual ideas. Modern society is preoccupied with the application of mind to the
physical world and society by means of technology. Humanity’s understanding of its place
in the universe, of our relations with one another, of our own psychological processes and
capacities for knowledge are continuously evolving. This historical narrative will examine
significant developments in relation to all three planes and the interactions between them.
The application of mind for the development of civilization has occurred in four major
spheres of social activity that are expressions of four interrelated components of the human
mentality—the capacity for conceptual thinking and logical reasoning; the capacity for ethical
thinking and moral discrimination; the capacity for aesthetic creativity and appreciation; and
the capacity for physical design, practical organization and efficient application for execution
of activities in space and time. Philosophy, religion, the arts, science and technology are
civilizational products of these capacities.
75
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
but seem to lack the capacity to consciously pass on learning from one generation to another.
Animal behavior and social existence remain relatively unchanged from one generation and
one millennium to the next, whereas human beings have continued to evolve higher forms of
knowledge and new forms of civilization.
The principal faculties of mind include conscious awareness, self-awareness, perception,
observation, memory, symbol formation, thinking, judgment, imagination and decision-
making. Each of these faculties can be further subdivided in innumerable ways. This paper
focuses primarily on the faculty of thinking, and the characteristics of the various types of
thinking human beings have developed for the pursuit of knowledge, and the relationship
between the ways we think and development of human civilization.
Thinking in earliest times seems to have been narrowly focused on specific actions
designed to meet specific physical needs and interactions with the physical environment.
The capacity of human beings to conceive of and fashion tools and instruments represents
a rudimentary form of thinking. The earliest known stone axes were made 2.7 million years
ago. Evidence of campfires are about 790,000 years old. Constructed dwelling places date
back to 350,000 BC. Blades, needles, grindstones, paints, fish hooks, spear points, harpoons
and mining instruments appeared in succession before 50,000 BC. The needle is of particular
significance because it made possible fashioning of tightly fitting warm fur garments that in
combination with fire enabled early Homo sapiens to survive in very cold northern climates
such as Siberia, which eventually became the land bridge for the peopling of the Americas
about 25,000 years ago.8 These inventions demonstrate that early man had the capacity to
translate conscious thoughts into action by a process referred to as decision or will. The
development and spread of tools are indicative of what Merlin Donald calls mimetic thinking.
Early man learned to cooperate and coordinate their activities as members of social groups.
They learned from one another by example before the advent of spoken language facilitated
oral communication and transmission of knowledge.9
Apart from these physical preoccupations, no evidence is available to determine at what
stage early human beings began to reflect on the factors that differentiated them from other
animals, the reason for the changes of season, the morality of their actions, their own mental
and psychological reactions, or the purpose of their lives on earth. These higher forms of
reflection required the prior development of language with a sophisticated vocabulary,
concepts and ideas.
3.1. Symbolic Thinking
Mind has the capacity for pure self-awareness. We know that we exist without the inter-
mediacy of senses or even of thought. But the faculty we call thinking is a form of indirect
knowledge. Our mind receives sensory data about the world around it, interprets that data
and derives knowledge from it. It hears a loud cry, identifies it as an animal, and analyzes it
to determine whether it is that of a prey or a predator. The data of the senses is distinct from
the objects of sensation and the knowledge derived is distinct from the data. It is indirect
knowledge. “Mind can only have the direct consciousness of self in the moment of its present
being; it can only have some half-direct perception of things as they are offered to it in the
76
A Brief History of Mind and Civilization Garry Jacobs
present moment of time and the immediate field of space and seized by the senses. It makes
up for its deficiency by memory, imagination, thought, idea-symbols of various kinds.”10 We
try to identify and judge the subjective intentions, mood, and capabilities of another human
being by their behavior, expressions and gestures. We have no direct capacity to perceive
their subjective state.
Thinking is also a separative form of knowledge. The thinking mind does not directly
perceive reality. It perceives thought-forms and formulates thought-symbols representing
reality but separate from it. Physical sensation and experience impact on mind in the form
of mental energy. The loud cry of an animal generates a mental sensation that activates the
mind to full alertness. But until the mind interprets the sensation and identifies it as friend or
foe, it does not possess knowledge. As soon as it recognizes the sound as the roar of a lion,
it converts the energy into a mental form, a thought expressing the danger of an approaching
lion. Then and only then does it also possess the capacity to transmit that knowledge to other
minds in the form of symbols, signs or words. All symbolic, theoretical, conceptual, scientific
knowledge is separative knowledge. It is knowledge of symbols that represent reality, not
reality itself. Relativity and Quantum Theory, medical diagnoses of disease and econometric
model of markets are conceptual representations of reality, not reality itself.
Thinking is a symbolic form of indirect, separative knowledge. It may begin with the
primitive symbolic representation of the forces of nature as images or sounds or gestures.
Cave art dating back 30,000 years confirms the development of symbolic thinking long
before the emergence of complex languages. Evidence from this period of the widespread
worship of the mother goddess most probably signified belief in the unique power of women
for procreation. This suggests that man had not yet realized the relationship between sexual
intercourse and the act of child birth nine months later. The symbol of the mother goddess
reflected the sense of wonder and power associated with the act of procreation.
Primitive man shook with fear at the occurrence of a solar eclipse or an inauspicious
configuration of the planets because he took these events as powerful symbols relevant
to his own life. Symbols became the means for the creation and perpetuation of powerful
superstitions. Superstition is the subconscious formation of a relationship between two or
more things based on the perception or imagination that they are related with one another.
Symbolic thinking ushered in a transition from utilitarian thought focused on gratifying
immediate needs to cosmological speculation regarding the nature of reality. Merlin Donald
terms this as the transition to the stage of mythic culture in which language was first used to
create conceptual models of the universe, grand unifying syntheses.11 The German historian
Karl Gotthard Lamprecht and the Indian philosopher Sri Aurobindo both describe a symbolic
stage of psychological development in which man felt a great Reality behind all life which he
sought through symbols and symbolic thinking which pervaded primitive society’s thought,
customs and institutions.12
These symbols were often laden with immense power. Historian Peter Watson identifies
the idea of God as one of the three most significant acts of cognition in the long evolution
77
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
78
A Brief History of Mind and Civilization Garry Jacobs
It was also necessary for early man to closely observe the relationship between crops,
soil types, rain, sunlight, temperature and the changing of the seasons. A long slow process
of subconscious observation eventually must have led to the first conscious realization that
human beings could replicate and even improve on the natural process. Instead of roaming
the earth to find food, human communities learned how to imitate Nature. It fostered the
development of sophisticated cognitive skills for planning, organization, specialization of
function, and timely execution of complex sequences of activities. It led to the concepts
of land as property and principles governing ownership. Agricultural surpluses spurred the
development of trade and the advent of money, as a symbolic form of social power. The field
of human productivity shifted from the land to the marketplace, from toiling on the soil to
mutually beneficial interactions with other people. It spurred the rise of commercial centers,
towns, cities, kingdoms, and overseas empires.
3.3. Early Civilizations
Archeologists associate the emergence of early civilizations with four important social
developments: the invention of written language, the creation of cities with monumental
architecture, specialization of work, and organized religion.14 Organization is a characteristic
power and action of mind. Mind organizes objects, ideas, beliefs, people, activities, events
and countless other things. Civilization represents the outward organization of the life of the
collective. It is made possible by the further development of a range of mental faculties and
cognitive abilities.
The development of written language around 5000 years ago required a sophisticated
capacity for precise definition, organization of thought and expression, and formulation of
grammatical rules. The development of cities involved the orderly physical arrangement of
structures, a division and categorization of activities, a hierarchical arrangement of authority
and decision-making. Specialization of function required the capacity to break down complex
activities into their parts, to arrange the sequence of steps and coordinate the relationship
between multiple activities.
The development of religious symbolism and ritual long preceded the emergence of
organized religion, which combines a mental construction of beliefs and ethical rules of
conduct, a hierarchical organization of authority, social organization of the community and
physical organization of events. The close and structured association between larger groups
of people in cities was a catalyst for rapid advances in law, formal systems of weights and
measures, trade, development of money, public administration, participative governance and
education. These capacities in combination necessitated the systematic application of mental
faculties at three levels—mental, social and physical.
3.4. Dividing Mind
Definition, categorization, organization, specialization, coordination and hierarchy are
complex human endowments founded on the mind’s capacity to differentiate aspects of
reality, compare and contrast them, and express their relationships with one another in terms
of space, time, characteristics, function, authority, action, and causality. These capacities
derive from the power of mind for division and aggregation.
79
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
80
A Brief History of Mind and Civilization Garry Jacobs
reality, lie at the root of all mental knowledge, the languages mind has evolved to formulate
and express that knowledge, and the civilizations that have resulted from these developments.
3.5. Birth of Reason
What is described above is a simplistic rendering of the primordial stages of mental evolution
in prehistoric times leading up to the creation of written language and the founding of
civilizations. The capacity of the mind for acute physical observation, symbol and language
formation, definition, categorization, correlation, organization and causation evolved
gradually over very long periods of time in different places and grew through contact,
exchange and imitation between early civilizations.
Thinking is primordial. The formulation of principles for valid reasoning was a later
invention. The symbolic and intuitive knowledge of ancient India became in ancient Greece
conceptual knowledge based on rational thinking and gave rise to the development of formal
logic. They pondered the nature of definition and sought to identify the principles of effective
reasoning. The Greeks sought to render reality into terms intelligible to the rational thinking
mind. The Egyptians were concerned with the practical application of geometry. The Greeks
transformed the practical tools of geometry developed in ancient Egypt into principles
validated by formal proof based on logical reasoning. Greece lived in a world of ideas that
were considered valuable in themselves, not merely for their practical utility.
Greece marked the transition from practically effective knowledge to ideative truth
affirmed by rational mental processes. The combination and correlation of thoughts led to
the development of complex abstract ideas and theories of knowledge. The birth of logic
vastly augmented the mind’s capacity for analysis by clarifying definitions and refining
thought processes. The development of logic coincided with the conception that the universe
is essentially a rational place that can be explained in rational terms.16 The Greeks established
science as the pursuit of knowledge of a rational universe knowable by observation and reason.
Their science was wide and borderless, not confined to narrow conceptual boundaries or cut
off from other forms of knowledge. It encompassed both natural science and philosophy.
They developed democracy, mathematics, education, formalized the role of hypothesis and
evidence in law, and based medicine on observation of symptoms and rational diagnosis.
The Hellenic period was remarkable for its development of rules for discernment by
reason and logic and rules for communication through rhetoric and dialectic in quest of
metaphysical and scientific truth. But it also applied analytic thinking to questions of justice,
right and wrong, ethics and morality, which are at the core of organized religion and social
thought. Nor did its rationalism prevent Plato, Aristotle and others from extolling the virtue of
intuition in their mystical quest to realize transcendent spiritual truths.17 The ancient Greeks
also excelled in the application of the mind’s aesthetic powers for the creation, appreciation
and enjoyment in literature, architecture and sculpture. They invented a wide variety of
expressive literary forms—historic, epic, philosophic, tragedy and comedy, pastoral and
lyric, oratory and didactic. Reason, discrimination, judgment, imagination and intuition all
contributed to the efflorescence of Hellenic civilization.
81
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
Hellenic civilization was extraordinary in one other way. It affirmed the value of
individuality and individual uniqueness. Ancient Greeks never allowed strict rules of logic
or mechanical laws of nature to infringe on the place of independent thinking, free will and
creative imagination. They revered mathematics but would have scorned the indiscriminate
application of statistical probability when applied to conscious human beings.
What is most impressive about Hellenic culture is its inclusiveness, sense of proportion,
balance and harmony. Perhaps unique in history, the Greeks simultaneously pursued
knowledge in all fields and by all means—in philosophy, metaphysics, polity, religion, the
arts and applied science. They affirmed intuition and logic, aesthetic sensibility, mathematical
precision and ethical conscience. They embraced the objective and subjective dimensions of
reality. They applied the analytic powers of mind with great depth and precision, yet never
lost sight of the larger reality which is eclipsed by the focus on minute particulars. They
accomplished this by a remarkable tolerance and respect for diversity of perspective. While
individual thinkers may have proclaimed with insistence the sole reality of the physical, their
assertion was not permitted to overshadow or obscure contrary points of view. This sense of
inclusiveness and proportion might well be the finest contribution of Hellenism to humanity.
It appears all the more precious in the current age of exclusive concentration on the objective
and the physical. Ancient Greece was able to aggregate an impressive range of perspectives,
but it could not truly synthesize and integrate them to form a comprehensive conception of
reality.
Rome inherited the Greek reverence for the powers of mind. But while in Greece, the
principal field of application was mental knowledge and the creative arts, the mind of Rome
was concentrated on social organization. Rome harnessed the powers of mind to organize
the life of the polity, law, the military, economy, education, civil administration and civic
life. It developed a written body of law and a theory of jurisprudence. It organized education,
establishing a widespread system of schools with a standardized curriculum. Greece gave
birth to the modern mind. Rome gave birth to modern social institutions. Greece developed
the intellectual and aesthetic faculties of mind to rare heights. Rome gave birth to the modern
state founded on a culture of duty and discipline and based on development of the ethical
faculty. The Greeks worshipped beauty. The Romans worshipped character.
82
A Brief History of Mind and Civilization Garry Jacobs
ancient Greeks gave emphasis to the geometric application of numbers for measurement, as
in the fields of architectural engineering and astronomy. Indians made important advances
with the development of the Hindu numerals and applications of trigonometry to astronomy
at the end of the 5th century AD. With the perfection of the decimal system and solution to
indeterminate equations and the addition of the zero symbol in the late 9th century, a decimal
based system of positional notation was fully in place. The introduction of the Hindu numerals
and algebra into Europe from Arabia gradually supplanted the Roman numerals. Precise
quantification was extended to many fields of life. The use of letters in place of numbers in
mathematics was introduced in the 13th century. The operational symbols in arithmetic were
devised in the 14th. This was accompanied by a significant change in written notations. The
order of subject, verb and object, the separation of individual letters into words, sentences,
and paragraphs, the adoption of punctuation, chapter headings, headlines, cross references
and alphabetization as an organizing principle were major advances. In combination, they
facilitated the spread of literacy and the use of numbers. The spread of mechanical clocks
from the late 13th century enhanced the consciousness of time. The development of musical
notation combined symbols and mathematical concepts to denote both octave and tempo.
The introduction of double entry resulting in the separation of assets and liabilities, debits
and credits greatly facilitated the development of commerce and banking.
4.2. Return to Nature
While Greece focused on the application of mind to ideas and Rome focused on the organizing
power of mind in society, the modern period began with intensive concentration of the
powers of mind on the physical world. The power of the analytic mind turned its attention to
the physical world of Nature. It gave rise to methods of inquiry that replaced the authority of
Church doctrine with validation by physical observations.
A brief survey cannot do justice to the many stages through which modern science has
developed or the complex array of civilizational advances that influenced that development.
The founding of universities, spread of learning, and rediscovery of the Greek classical legacy
gradually restored the preeminent authority of logical reasoning and empirical experience.
It led to the development of inductive and systematic testing in the 12th century and the
reemergence of mathematics, philosophy and metaphysics in the 13th century. A commercial
revolution led to important innovations in agricultural production, manufacturing,
entrepreneurship, trade, shipping, banking and insurance. This in turn gave rise to a
bourgeoisie of unprecedented wealth and sense of independence, which spurred a radical
reorganization of society with increasing freedom and independence from feudal and church
authority. The revival of Platonic philosophy legitimized the pursuit of metaphysical truth
through number, geometry and intuition, laying the intellectual groundwork for the emergence
of rational, secular humanism and individualism in the 15th century.18 The invention of the
printing press facilitated that rapid reproduction and inexpensive dissemination of ideas. An
efflorescence of originality in the arts coupled with the rise of individualism gave birth to the
concept of genius, an idea unknown in the medieval world-view.19 The Reformation brought
with it a more tolerant and more secularly intellectual atmosphere for considering alternative
viewpoints in the 16th century. The founding of learned societies and scientific journals in the
83
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
84
A Brief History of Mind and Civilization Garry Jacobs
mathematics to arrive at a more precise understanding of the physical world. The concept
of immutable laws of governing an orderly, machine-like universe became a conception in
science. His work spurred advances in mathematics as a field of knowledge in its own right
and as an instrument of knowledge applicable to all fields of existence. As a consequence,
modern science has come to identify valid knowledge with mathematical proof and to search
for knowledge in places where the light of mathematics can shine brightly.
4.4. Intellectual Impact & Cultural Consequences
The rise of modern science altered the course of global civilization, the evolution of the
human mind and the development of our conception of knowledge in fundamental ways.
1. Physicalism: It led to the materialization of knowledge. The exclusive focus on
knowledge of physical nature eventually led to the implicit premise or explicit belief
that the physical is the sole plane of reality, a conclusion which Newton and other
early scientists would have vigorously rejected. This premise is now pervasive even
in the social sciences, where genetics and neuroscience seek to unveil the mechanisms
governing psychology and even conscious mentality.
2. Deterministic Mechanism: The scientific revolution led to the conception of knowledge
as a set of immutable, universal laws determining the functioning of a static, mechanical
universe. Knowledge of reality became synonymous with certainty and predictability
until challenged by the discoveries of quantum mechanics nearly three centuries later.
Outside Physics this premise remains largely unchallenged. The Newtonian quest for
immutable, universal laws of Nature was later extended to identify universal laws
governing polity, economy and society. For the past two centuries economists have
attempted to reduce human behavior and interaction to external factors and mechanistic
processes governed by universal principles. The study of general principles has obscured
the unique role of the individual in social development, innovation, discovery and
creativity. The mechanical view of reality has led to the rejection of human free will as
an appearance and neglect of individual uniqueness.
3. Specialization: Mind’s capacity for division and analytic thinking inevitably led to a
proliferation of separate disciplines, to specialization, and compartmentalization of
knowledge with immense consequences. Over the last five centuries, the number
of intellectual disciplines has multiplied from five to around 1000 disciplines and
sub-disciplines. As the study of reality is divided up into smaller and smaller pieces,
specialization has led to increasing fragmentation of knowledge. Viewing each field
independently has generated precise knowledge of the parts, but obscured the complex
interactions and relationships between elements that are essential for knowledge of the
whole.
4. Quantification of Knowledge: It led also to the quantification of reality—the confusion
of data and information with real knowledge and the misconception that mathematical
models and statistical probability are true and accurate representations of the real
world. Mathematics is an extremely powerful tool for the discovery and validation of
85
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
86
A Brief History of Mind and Civilization Garry Jacobs
lives as well as our minds, at least within the boundaries of the world as science perceives
and understands them.
Each of these characteristics has contributed positively to the advance of scientific
knowledge and is partly responsible for its collective achievements over the past five
centuries. At the same time, each of them has imposed arbitrary limits on the development
of knowledge. After reigning victorious for four centuries, today we see the weaknesses and
insufficiencies of modern science rising to the surface, staring at us with its unvarnished
flaws and glaring inadequacies. Byers used the term ‘blind spots’ for intrinsic limitations to
what can be known through science.24 It behooves us to generously recognize its enormous
contribution, and yet equally to acknowledge and inquire into its errors, omissions, blind
spots, prejudices, pompous presumptions, superstitions and intolerances—the very
characteristics against which it first arose in rebellion and has since fought for centuries to
eliminate. An impartial consideration of their role will help us understand both the strengths
and weaknesses of science today and reveal opportunities for the further advance of both
knowledge and civilization.
4.5. Objectivity & Subjectivity
The initial concentration of modern science on physical nature was justified as a logical
choice and practical necessity. The rise of positivism converted practical necessity into
philosophical dogma with profound implications for the development of science and the
further evolution of mind. The transition was abetted by confusion regarding the ambiguity
of the terms objectivity and subjectivity, each of which has a double meaning. The study of
physical nature is the study of inanimate objects and subconscious life forms which can only
be observed objectively (“observe as object”) in the external environment, since we have
no access to their subjective intentions or self-experience. Descartes’ body-mind dualism
encouraged the idea of the scientist as an objective (“impartial”) witness standing outside
of nature, rather than as an involved participant in the world he observes. Gradually, the
notion of objectivity as the study of external objects without impartiality merged with the
very different notion of objectivity as the absence of ‘distorting personal preferences’ of
the subject and came to be regarded as one and the same thing. This led eventually to the
philosophical premise that reality consists solely of objects that can be studied objectively
and by extension that all subjective phenomena are secondary results of objective causes.
The word subjectivity also has two meanings which have gradually become conjoined
and confused with one another. Subjectivity (“experience as subject”) is the psychological
field of conscious human experience that is not directly accessible to external observation.
Only its behavioral expressions can be observed by others. But it is also used to connate
subjective (“personally biased and preferential”) factors contributed by the observer, such
as preconceived notions and prejudices, the legacy of traditional beliefs and superstitions
prevalent at the time.25 In its quest for impartial knowledge of physical objects in the world
around, emphasis was naturally placed on eliminating this distorting influence. So the idea of
subjectivity as the psychological experience of a conscious individual came to be regarded as
an unscientific and invalid form of evidence and to some extent an invalid form of experience.
87
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
As in the anecdote of the man who lost his keys on a dark street and searched for them down
the block under a street light where there was better light, science sought to discover ultimate
knowledge by the exclusive study of physical factors that could be observed by the physical
senses and measured by material instruments. In the process the entire subjective dimension
of reality, the dimension which distinguishes human beings from all other species, was
subordinated to the objective dimension observable by the senses. Eventually it resulted in
philosophical and scientific efforts to reduce all non-physical phenomena solely to physical
causes.
The course of science exerted a subtle influence on the development of mental faculties
and concepts of truth, knowledge and logic. It displaced the Greek conception of truth as
that which could be known in the form of pure ideas accessible to logical reasoning, but not
necessarily to physical observation or measurement. Rationality itself came to be narrowly
associated only with that which can be perceived and verified physically. The old adage that
I will believe it when I see it acquired the status of scientific dogma, even when applied to
aspects of reality beyond the reach of the senses. This phenomenon might be termed the
materialization of knowledge.
4.6. Fragmentation of Reality
Divide and subdivide reality ever so much and we still arrive at some smaller portion of
reality that eludes our grasp. The infinitesimal is infinite. The dominant role of the analytic
intellect in modern science resulted in the dissection of knowledge into smaller and smaller
fragments resulting in the proliferation of specialized fields of study. Analysis is an extremely
powerful instrument. It harnesses the dividing power of mind to separate reality into smaller
and smaller parts. By so doing, we acquire more precise, detailed knowledge of the part and
are enticed to drill down to ever deeper levels of minuteness. As its focus narrows to laser-like
precision, the surrounding fields and interconnected aspects of reality grow proportionately
out of focus and obscure. The more we know the part, the less we know about the integrality
of the whole.
Physical science has compensated for this divisive tendency by aggregating knowledge
from different specialized fields to form a remarkably cohesive and coherent conception of
the physical universe. It has successfully incorporated the fundamental principles of physics
into chemistry and the principles of both into astronomy, geology, the material sciences,
climatology, oceanography, soil science and innumerable other disciplines. While the same
fundamental principles are consistently applied, the interactions between subsidiary fields
founded on these principles have been less effectively related and integrated. Partly, this
is due to the complexity arising from these multiple interactions, but also partly because
research and theorization have largely proceeded in a compartmentalized manner. Raging
controversies regarding climate change are partly attributable to the fact that for so long
the complex array of phenomena that influence climate have been studied piecemeal,
independently from one another.
The consequences of compartmentalization and fragmentation become more evident
when we look at the life sciences. Here the effort to overcome compartmental barriers is far
88
A Brief History of Mind and Civilization Garry Jacobs
less advanced. Interdisciplinary and cross disciplinary research have become more common,
but the fundamental principles applied in different fields remain largely autonomous. For
decades, evolutionary biology remained preoccupied with the exclusive role of random
mutation in the evolution of species, ignoring important biological and environmental factors
that impact on the chemistry and biology of genetic materials.
In medicine, specialization has led to remarkable progress in our understanding of specific
pathologies, but it has taught us relatively little about the overall concept of health. Moreover,
the piecemeal treatment of specific illnesses often has consequences quite detrimental to
the overall health of the patient. In allopathic medicine health is conceived primarily in
negative terms as the absence of disease; whereas in traditional systems of medicine such
as Ayurveda, developed by reliance on more synthetic and integrative mental processes,
health is conceived in positive terms as the property of a balanced and harmonious living
organism. This becomes even more evident when we take into account psycho-somatic
phenomena. Research on the ‘placebo effect’ dramatically demonstrates the impact of the
patient’s attitude and expectations on treatment outcomes and general health. Indeed, recent
findings indicate that the placebo effect is increasing over time. This and other phenomena
directly connecting physiological and psychological processes testify to the need for a much
more synthetic conception and approach.
89
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
complexity of conscious, self-aware purposeful human beings living in complex social and
cultural environments, interacting with myriad social institutions and organized activities,
utilizing a vast array of tools and instruments, and influenced by the cumulative knowledge
and experience of countless generations of humanity. Moreover, the level of individuation,
complexity and uniqueness observed in human beings is far greater than that found in other
life forms. The behavior of every electron, every atom of hydrogen and every red blood cell
may be identical, but the behavior of every individual human being is characterized by a
very large degree of variation and uniqueness. The range of factors influencing behavior and
outcomes defies numeration. Physical and biological factors apply, but social, cultural and
psychological factors play a determinative role. Individuality may safely be ignored in the
study of physical and biological phenomena, but it is central to the knowledge of conscious
human beings.
5.1. Fragmentation in the Social Sciences
The problem of compartmentalization of knowledge in the social sciences becomes evident
when we consider that each discipline has developed its own set of fundamental principles
and applies them relatively independently from the rest. Different concepts and hypotheses
regarding human behavior are routinely adopted by political scientists, economists,
sociologists, anthropologists, lawyers, and management scientists, yet all with application
to the same subject—individuals and groups of individual human beings. No universally
accepted principles are uniformly applied across fields.
The consequences of this fragmentation are apparent in the problems we confront related
to environmental degradation, unemployment, political instability, social alienation, crime,
drugs, and psychological disorders. For two centuries Economic theory developed without
giving serious consideration to the impact of human economic behavior on the physical
environment. Similarly, the development and application of technologies for economic
purposes have been done without regard for their impact on employment, social stability,
human welfare and well-being. Many economic theorists ignore the central role of political
regulation in the successful operation of free and competitive markets. Legal theory has
become increasingly divorced from political principles, social aspirations and human rights.
The humanitarian rights of humanity are rejected on the basis of legal principles that recognize
only the rights of sovereign nations, not of their citizens.
The same fragmentation of knowledge occurs within disciplines supporting an increasing
divorce between different aspects of our social existence. Backed by fragmented theoretical
conceptions, financial markets have become divorced from the real economy and the economic
welfare of people which they were originally intended to support. A similar fragmentation
has led to the treatment of a wide range of psychological problems as if they are simply
physical in origin.
The Cartesian divide also isolates and insulates social science from society and the social
consequences of its theories. Theorists assume no responsibility for the failures arising from
application of their flawed conceptions, as exemplified by the global crisis of 2008. Scientists
in leading universities refuse to acknowledge or apply the findings of educational researchers
90
A Brief History of Mind and Civilization Garry Jacobs
in the same institution about the most effective pedagogy to promote learning. Medical
doctors are licensed without receiving any training in managing patient and family relations.
The list of gaps and short-circuits is endless.
91
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
92
A Brief History of Mind and Civilization Garry Jacobs
The problem of objectivity goes still deeper. In regarding reason as an impartial judge
and witness of reality, we overlook the implicit biases that colors all rational thought. Reason
has a pronounced tendency to concentrate on facts and ideas consistent with its premises
and to ignore or differently interpret those that contradict it. Science is itself a subjective
discipline for generating knowledge governed and framed by philosophical conceptions that
are themselves inherently ‘unscientific’ because they cannot be validated by the scientific
method. The effort to exclude philosophy from science suppresses open discussion, but can
never eliminate its subjectivity. In denying the validity of subjective forms of knowledge,
science invalidates itself.
5.3. Quantifying Humanness
The application of statistics to social problems has brought to the front inherent problems
with the quantification of human experience. Nassim Taleb argues in The Black Swan that
for over a century social scientists “have been operating under the false belief that their
tools could measure uncertainty.”27 The enormous power of quantitative methods has
progressively obscured the important contribution of qualitative components of reality and
individual differences in the social sciences. Taleb seeks to challenge a blind or misguided
sense of confidence in the reliability of political and economic decisions based on statistics.
He concludes that the problem lies in the structure of our minds.28 On the other hand,
Weisberg argues that precious qualitative information relating to individual differences is
being consciously suppressed or neglected in clinical fields such as medicine and psychology
by what he terms ‘willful ignorance’.29 Both these viewpoints reinforce the need to reexamine
fundamental philosophical issues with respect to the application of quantitative methods to
the social sciences.
The point here is not to criticize either science or social science. It is rather to emphasize
the inherent limitations and untoward consequences that arise from a partial, one-sided and
unbalanced development and application of our mental faculties. The knowledge we need
is very unlikely to be discovered by objective analytic methods, quantitative measurements
or experimental neuroscience. It lies in our conscious experience and can be most directly
accessed by reflecting on our own mode of functioning as scientists, rather than hunting
for answers through mountains of clinical experiments. Mind has been the instrument of
all humanity’s achievements and it lies at the root of the problems confronting civilization
today. No other field of scientific inquiry has so much to offer.
6. Synthesis
Long before the development of logic, the ancients discovered the profound truth that
reality is one and indivisible. What mind infinitely divides for the purpose of analysis remains
at all times a unified, integrated whole. Mind’s capacity for analysis and its capacity for
synthesis are in constant tension. The more we divide reality for the purpose of understanding
its component parts, the more we lose sight of the interconnections, relationships and
interdependencies that reflect its underlying unity. Division and aggregation present
complementary perspectives of reality. The microscope and the telescope are instruments
93
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
fashioned by these compensatory needs to zero in on a specific target and zoom out to see
the big picture.
The inherent limitations and inadequacy of the knowledge generated by extreme
specialization, compartmentalization and fragmentation became increasingly apparent in the
20th century and inevitably gave rise to efforts to reunite that which had been torn asunder
into tiny fragments. Compartmentalized universities introduced interdisciplinary, cross-
disciplinary and multi-disciplinary studies and research, which sought to bring a variety of
different perspectives to bear on problematic issues. But the inherent limitations of these
efforts soon became evident. Each brought to the problem a different set of concepts, theories
and evidential data to talk about the same problem, without any shared conceptual framework
indicating the relationship between these disparate perspectives, their interdependencies or
the unifying factors underlying their different expressions.
6.1. Systems Thinking
The limitations of aggregating multiple sets of data based on different theoretical frameworks
gave rise to efforts to conceptualize the relationships between all the parts by viewing the whole
as a complex interconnected system. Cybernetics evolved as the study of control systems in
the early 20th century in the fields of electric network theory, mechanical engineering, logic
modeling, evolutionary biology and neuroscience. Its insights contributed to the theory of
complex systems. It stimulated transdisciplinary research in information theory, artificial
intelligence, robotics, medical science, economic systems, biology, cognitive science,
management, sociology, and the earth sciences. The systematic application of mind’s capacity
for synthesis led to practical applications of immense importance in computer science and
communications. A similar approach has been adopted to build systemic theories and models
of global financial markets and the global economy, as well as to comprehend the complex
array of forces that govern the climate of the earth and on the impact of human behavior on
the planet.
Systems theory has helped compensate for the extreme fragmentation of knowledge
resulting from specialization. It has restored a vision of the totality of existence within specific
fields and with relation to specific problems. The significance of this change in thinking is
most dramatically reflected in the development of the Internet and World Wide Web over the
past few decades, giving rise to the world’s first truly global social system. Conversely, the
practical development of cyberspace has provided a tangible example, symbol and metaphor
for systemic thinking and has been a catalyst for the development of more comprehensive,
inclusive thinking in all walks of life.
But the development of core complex systems theory extends beyond the mind’s capacity
for aggregation and synthesis. At a more fundamental level it seeks to identify universal
principles that underlie and govern the behavior of complex adaptive systems in a very
wide range of applications, such as network effects, emergence, self-organization, and
self-reproduction (autopoiesis). It represents a serious effort to move from the aggregation
of specialized knowledge through multi-disciplinarity to the search for unifying trans-
disciplinary principles.
94
A Brief History of Mind and Civilization Garry Jacobs
95
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
96
A Brief History of Mind and Civilization Garry Jacobs
cannot arrive at true integration. Although the word is widely used in a more limited sense
as synonym for totality, comprehensiveness, holism and interdependence, true integration
that is the basis for unification is something more fundamental. It may be best described in
the words of the Upanishads as all is in each, each is in all, all is in all. Integration is a state
in which each element in a totality is not only related to the totality but also to every other
individual element in the totality.
The struggle of climate scientists to construct accurate and effective theories and models
of climate change is compounded by the fact that the entire earth with its myriad zones,
geographic and geological characteristics is in constant interaction with the life forms that
inhabit it and the conscious and subconscious activities they carry out. Climate is impacted
not only by physical factors, but also by the biological functioning of living things and the
conscious and subconscious actions of human beings. Our capacity for analysis and synthesis
is poorly suited to manage complexity of this sort.
The remarkable integrality of the human body is an excellent example and analogy.
Medical science has created an abstract conceptual framework to represent the functioning
of the body. It is divided into anatomical structures and physiological functions. The
structures include cells, tissues, organs and systems. The functions include respiration,
digestion, circulation, reproduction, and so forth. But both of these classifications are
themselves abstractions. There really is no such system as the circulatory system distinct
and independent of the skeletal, muscular, nervous, lymphatic and other cells, tissues, organs
and systems. Each cell, tissue and organ forms an integral component of the overall body.
But the functioning of each type is also integrated with the functioning of other types. Thus,
a prick of the surface tissue of the finger may evoke a response from the skin, capillaries,
blood cells, heart, brain, glands, circulatory, nervous and lymphatic systems. Moreover, as
the Placebo Effect and other well-documented neurological, psychological and sociological
phenomena amply testify, the body’s physiological functioning is also seamlessly integrated
with a host of other factors—nutritional intake, physical environment, type and amount of
physical activity, the endless flow of sensations, impulses and emotion occurring consciously
and subconsciously, mental conceptions, opinions, attitudes, beliefs and aspirations of each
individual, as well as the ever-changing physical, emotional and mental interaction between
the individual and the physical, social, and psychological context in which it is situated. The
limitations in prevailing conceptual models of reality severely hamper efforts to pass beyond
an aggregation of physical parts and functions to a truly comprehensive integral conception
of human health.
The conclusion that present knowledge is inadequate to guide the further evolution of
human civilization is not an indictment of the vast body of specialized knowledge of society
generated by science up to now. It is rather a realization that more of the same will not
suffice. Relativity Theory did not invalidate the principles of Newtonian Physics. Rather
it placed them in a wider context, in which their limits became evident. Today, there is a
need to venture beyond the limits of the present conceptual system in search of one that is
more inclusive and effective in reconciling our knowledge of the world with the persistent
failures and recurring problems that stand in contradiction. The first step in the evolution of
97
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
a new conceptual system is to acknowledge and embrace these contradictions and willingly
reexamine the premises which constitute the foundations of the present conceptual system.31
7.1. Integration in the Social Sciences
The need for transcending the limits of both analytic and synthetic thinking is most apparent
in the social sciences where compartmentalized, fragmented knowledge persists as the
dominant pursuit and each field is founded on a discipline-specific set of principles with
little relevance beyond the narrow borders of specialized applications. This approach has
generated a condition resembling the psychological syndrome of multiple disconnected
personalities known as dissociative identity disorder. In both instances it is symptomatic
of deeper disorder. In an effort to arrive at rational, scientifically valid knowledge, we have
fallen prey to the natural tendency of the thinking mind to separate itself from the objects
of study in a static universe and regard them from a detached perspective objectively and
impersonally. In doing so, our sciences of living human beings have become mechanical,
materialistic, value-free and lifeless. They lack the vibrancy characteristic of living things.
They lack the depth and insight needed to plumb the rich complexity of the individual psyche
and collective soul. “Classical, deterministic science is a science of stasis. It misses the
essence of life”.32
This realization has been the driving force behind the efforts of the World Academy of
Art & Science and World University Consortium in partnership with other organizations to
advocate the need for a new paradigm in human development, a human-centered economic
theory, and a transdisciplinary science of society. Our work has identified critical respects in
which the new conceptual framework needs to transcend the limits of the present one. The
new paradigm should be value-based rather than value-free. It should be transdisciplinary
rather than discipline specific or merely multi-disciplinary, which means it should seek to
discover the underlying principles governing human behavior in all fields of social existence.
It should embrace and reunite the objective and subjective dimensions of reality, recognizing
the central role of human consciousness and human aspiration in human affairs. It should
be founded on the creative process governing the interaction between the individual and the
collective. It should rise beyond the mechanistic, materialistic models of natural science to
establish knowledge based on the dynamic living process by which human beings release their
energies, consciously and purposefully direct them, channel those energies through formal
organizational and informal institutional structures and systems, and express them through
skilled action to accomplish results. And as a foundation and central pillar of this work, it
should strive to advance our understanding of the human mind and thought processes, the
sources and obstacles to creativity and their relationship to the evolution of civilization.33
Preliminary work has been done by members of the Academy on many elements of a
new approach, but the real purpose of the project is to influence the general direction and
course of our collective intellectual progress. Decades ago Former WAAS President Harold
Lasswell made a profound contribution to the study of law by liberating it from the narrow
confines of legislatures and judiciaries and viewing it in the context of evolving social and
political processes and the affirmation of values by individuals and institutions in society.34
98
A Brief History of Mind and Civilization Garry Jacobs
99
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
8. Deep Thinking
8.1. Changing Conceptual Frameworks
If mind starts from division and possesses only constructed understanding of unity, the
question naturally arises as to what mental faculty is needed to achieve true integration and
unification. As Sri Aurobindo observes, mind “thinks, sees, wills, feels, senses with division
as a starting point and has only constructed understanding of unity.”38 If the analytic and
synthetic faculties of the thinking mind are not sufficient, what alternative is left?
100
A Brief History of Mind and Civilization Garry Jacobs
Mathematician William Byers uses the term deep thinking to describe creative intellectual
processes that transcend the conceptual limits of existing thought and the rules of logic. He
observes that all thinking occurs within a conceptual system. The system may be explicit
and implicit, conscious or subconscious. The definition of every word is a conceptual
system determined by prevailing cultural norms, social context and individual psychological
experience. Every theoretical concept is defined, populated and delineated by defining and
limiting perspectives. The boundaries and tenets of any conceptual system are supported
and reinforced by forces that resist any assault. Among these forces is the sense of security
derived from existing knowledge, the inertial resistance to a major reconsideration of beliefs
on which so much has been invested, the egoistic identification with a particular viewpoint,
and unconscious bias for elements that conform to its existing premises and rejection of those
that undermine or contradict it. Logic and mathematics are conceptual systems. Science itself
is a conceptual system. This paper identifies some of the pillars on which science is based that
are implicitly accepted as valid, but rarely subject to examination.
Byers argues that all major intellectual breakthroughs involve a breaking out of the existing
conceptual system. Since the boundaries of the system are often implicit and unconscious,
they are not easily accessible to identification or scrutiny. Therefore, the creative process
of transcending the existing system usually begins with the contemplation of questions that
are not easily addressed within the existing context. These questions often take the form
of conflicting viewpoints, contradictory facts or unresolved ambiguities, which the current
framework is unable to assimilate and reconcile within existing premises. The willingness
to recognize and embrace the tension of ambiguity, contradictions and paradox releases
energy and generates the force needed to breach the boundaries or challenge the fundamental
premises of the existing system. The Copernican Revolution and the other major intellectual
advances referred to by Thomas Kuhn as paradigm shifts are classical instances of this
process.
The process of deep thinking and the obstacles to it are illustrated in Arthur Conan
Doyle’s stories of Sherlock Holmes. In many cases the police arrive at a conclusion regarding
the facts of a crime and the guilty party by carefully constructing a plausible hypothesis
that either consciously or inadvertently overlooks apparently insignificant contradictory
evidence. In “Silver Blaze” the police develop an airtight theory of how a race horse was
stolen and its trainer murdered by the thief and they make an arrest of a suspect with both
motive and opportunity to have been responsible. Holmes alone is bothered by apparently
insignificant questions. Why didn’t the watch dog bark during the theft? By what coincidence
was the stable boy served a dinner that was sufficiently spicy to mask the flavor of an opiate?
Embracing the implied contradiction which the police chose to ignore, he constructed an
alternative hypothesis that led to an entirely different conclusion. The trainer was actually
killed by the horse while attempting to maim its ankle muscles so it would lose the race. The
deep and lasting appeal of Doyle’s fictional character derives from the fact that he points the
way to a higher evolutionary pathway.
Viewed in this manner, the possibility of consciously fostering the process of creative
thinking is stripped of its mystical shroud. The process requires a willingness to question
101
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
implicit assumptions and established tenets and the strength to embrace rather than reject
or ignore conflicting points of view. There is no guarantee that stepping outside the secure
boundaries of an existing conceptual system will necessarily lead to fruitful creativity. It may
be just as likely lead to a loss of certainty and confusion. Stepping out is a necessary, but not
sufficient condition for mental creativity. But without taking that risk, real creative thinking
is extremely unlikely. Byers argues that we have all had the experience of transcending an
existing conceptual system in the process of learning about new ideas. As students we learn
to make the leap already made by others before us. Creative thinking requires the ability to
make the leap for ourselves. But either way the process is the same.
8.2. Intuitive Knowledge
The instances of scientific discoveries in Physics cited above demonstrate that integration
and unification are indeed possible, but they appear to be the work of rare geniuses whose
processes we neither understand nor have the capacity to emulate. The testimony of great
scientists themselves attributes such discoveries to sudden bursts of insight or leaps of thought
rather than linear, systematic rational thought processes. Popper argues that “There is no such
thing as a logical method of having new ideas or a logical reconstruction of this process…
every discovery contains ‘an irrational element’, or ‘a creative intuition’ in Bergson’s sense.”
Einstein speaks in a similar vein with regard to the discovery of universal laws. He refers to an
intuitive experience that leads to psychological identification with the object of experience.
“There is no logical path leading to these…laws. They can only be reached by intuition,
based upon something like an intellectual love of the object of experience.”39 During his brief
lifetime, Srinivasa Ramanujan compiled nearly 3,900 mathematical identities and equations,
of which nearly all have now been proven correct. The Ramanujan prime and the Ramanujan
theta function have inspired a vast amount of further research. When his notebooks were first
scrutinized by leading British mathematicians, they responded with skepticism, suspicion
and extreme disbelief, for he had arrived at original findings of unparalleled complexity
without passing through the traditional process of mathematical proof. When questioned,
Ramanujan explained that he saw the theorems in his mind.
Thomas Kuhn regards intuitive thinking as an essential condition for the type of radical
change in paradigm associated with scientific revolutions. “Paradigms are not corrigible by
normal science at all... normal science ultimately leads only to the recognition of anomalies
and to crises. And these are terminated, not by deliberations and interpretation, but by a
relatively sudden and unstructured event like the gestalt switch. Scientists then often speak of
the ‘scales falling from the eyes’ or of the ‘lightning flash’ that ‘inundates’ a previously obscure
puzzle. On other occasions the relevant illumination comes in sleep. No ordinary sense of the
term ‘interpretation’ fits these flashes of intuition through which a new paradigm is borne.”40
Our understanding of intuitive processes is quite limited, in spite of the fact that throughout
history insight and intuition have been cited as the source of new discoveries and new
knowledge. We live in times characterized by an unquestioned faith in the power of rational
thought, systematic training in logical argument in formal education, and supreme regard
for orderly argument based on factual evidence and logical reasoning in judging the validity
102
A Brief History of Mind and Civilization Garry Jacobs
of any proposition. It is very likely that this extreme reliance on the analytic and synthetic
modes of thought impedes the development and exercise of these faculties in our times.
The philosophy and methodology of modern science focus almost exclusively on the
tenets of the scientific method to validate hypotheses. So great is the identification of science
with analytic and synthetic modes of thinking, that it devotes almost no attention to the
creative process of discovery on which its greatest achievements are actually based. One
reason for this reluctance to focus on the intuitive process of scientific creativity is the
mystique associated with artistic creativity and mystical experiences. If so, then rationality
and logic dictate that science should strive to learn as much as possible from these other
modes of thinking.
Intuition may be far more common than we think. Today we recognize it only when it is
associated with outstanding discoveries recognized by the whole world and in circumstances
when it is associated with a number of other traits conducive to high intellectual achievement—
high intelligence, the courage to challenge prevailing ideas, an unconditioned mind capable
of independent thinking, and intense aspiration that generates the energy and effort for
unstinting application and perseverance. It is very likely that the capacity itself is far more
prevalent and expressing as creative insight at different levels of society in many fields that
go unnoticed. There was a time when the ability to read, write or calculate was considered a
sign of genius. Since then humanity has evolved, our minds have evolved and our civilization
has evolved so that what was once extraordinary has become the norm. Today the idea of
learning to think intuitively may sound outlandish. But it may well be that once we pierce
the veil of superstition surrounding it, we will discover means to consciously develop it
on a large scale. The first essential step is to remove the stigma or scientific skepticism
surrounding ways of knowing that transcend logic and rationality.
9. Limits to Rationality
The term ‘limits to rationality’ is inherently ambiguous as well as unsettling, even
disturbing. It is ambiguous in the sense that it can be used to imply both limits to the extent
to which rationality is being applied in the pursuit of knowledge and also to suggest that
rationality is itself subject to inherent limits in its capacity to arrive at certain knowledge. For
both these reasons the term is also unsettling and disturbing. It is unsettling because we human
beings possess or are possessed by such a strong aspiration to arrive at certain knowledge. It
is disturbing because it suggests that the mental instruments so far developed and utilized by
us in quest of that certainty are subject to inherent limits both in their application and in their
powers of discernment.
This historical narrative on the evolution of mind and civilization supports these
conclusions. It confirms that even our most sincere, scrupulous, impartial and disinterested
seeking for knowledge is subject to limitations imposed by conscious and subconscious
perceptions, conceptions, assumptions and perspectives through which we seek for reliable
knowledge. As Byers emphasizes, the very nature of a conceptual system is that it is self-
limiting. For regardless of how broad and open its premises, it is a construction built and
103
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
viewed from inside itself and is unable from the vantage point to fully perceive the foundations
on which it is constructed. In setting forth the principles on which his geometry is based,
Euclid never conceived of a context in which two parallel lines could meet. That conception
belonged to a different conceptual framework that was only discovered 2000 years later. So
too, when Newton presented his laws of motion, he never qualified the limits within which
these laws held true. He naturally assumed that space and time were invariable constants.
The new paradigm conceived by Einstein challenged assumptions that were so basic they had
never before been questioned. Quantum Theory challenged notions so fundamental that even
Einstein rejected them as implausible.
Our resistance to entertaining premises that contradict established viewpoints arises not
only out of an inability to imagine or conceive something different, but also out of a marked
preference for justifying the existing system. So strong is this tendency that our reason
carefully selects for its attention ideas and evidence in support of its viewpoint and ignores or
discounts that which contradicts it.41 Science has made great advances in establishing criteria
for falsifying hypotheses, but it possesses no remedy to the urge of the scientific collective
to admire the clothes of the reigning emperor of scientific authority. A greater awareness of
the social and psychological barriers to a truly impartial exercise of reason would be a major
contribution.
104
A Brief History of Mind and Civilization Garry Jacobs
compress reality into simplistic formulas is a form of willful ignorance that facilitates
transfer of knowledge and multiple choice examinations, but conditions the mind to
think simplistically and suppress important dimensions of reality. No single statement,
no single theoretical perspective can ever be comprehensive. Therefore, the approach to
education in all fields should emphasize the multi-dimensional, many-sided character of
reality and our knowledge of it. Education in all subjects should stress the complexity
of knowledge rather than reduce it to simple formulas to be memorized. It should
encourage young minds to examine contrary, opposing and contradictory perspectives.
Precise mental knowledge of the totality is never possible, most especially with respect
to the complexity of human experience. Therefore, a precise analytic knowledge of
the individual contributing elements should be balanced by a holistic vision of their
harmonious integral relationship to and within the whole. The capacity of the mind for
differentiation and delimitation must be transcended by also fostering an intuitive faculty
for integration and unification.
2. Reuniting the Surface and Depth, Objective and Subjective Dimensions: As there
are multiple dimensions to reality, there are also multiple levels or depths. Effective
education should simultaneously cultivate observation, perception and perspective at
multiple levels of reality. These levels are represented in the natural sciences by the
physical, chemical, biological, genetic, metabolic, neurological and other processes
present in the functioning of all living beings. The discoveries of Copernicus, Einstein
and Heisenberg arose from a willingness to reexamine fundamental premises. In the
human sciences, reality is governed by myriad mental, emotional, vital, social, cultural,
technological, organizational and environmental factors that provide the foundation and
context for all social phenomena. A comprehensive study of the factors leading to the
Italian Renaissance, abolition of slavery, the Great Depression, the two world wars, the
end of colonialism, the founding of the UN, the beginning and end of the Cold War,
the hippy movement, the birth of the European Union and the Internet, climate change,
the 2008 financial crisis, Occupy Wall Street, and the European refugee crisis would
be illustrative. In each case comprehensive knowledge must necessarily include an
understanding of prevailing ideas, intellectual atmosphere, beliefs, aspirations, anxieties,
threats, emerging evolutionary social forces and values, opposing vested interests and
reactionary forces, and emotional sensibilities. It should include a view of surface
movements, distinct and separate elements, oppositions, conflict of forces, fine shades of
variation and individuality. It should also include a perspective based on the underlying
oneness, inner unity, harmony in law of movement or being, greater reconciliation, the
center from which all aspects emanate and to which they return.
3. Reconciling Contradictions: As Niels Bohr said, “It is the hallmark of any deep truth
that its negation is also a deep truth.”43 In each area of observation, education should
cultivate a sense of the complementarity between difference and oneness, subjective and
objective, individual uniqueness and collective type. Rather than categorizing reality in
terms of simple polar opposites, education should develop varying perspectives arising
from different viewpoints and different levels of consciousness and experience. What
105
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
appear as contradictions at one level and from one perspective represent complementary
aspects of reality from a wider or deeper perspective. Studying things from the differing
perspective of the mental, vital-social, and physical planes will foster a capacity to
clearly distinguish these movements, separate and better control them.
The approach will naturally vary and is too complex to be dealt with in this paper. One
example may suffice to illustrate some of these aspects. In March 1933 Franklin D. Roosevelt
become President of the United States in the midst of the most severe banking crisis the
country had ever faced. Since the Great Crash in 1929, more than 6000 US banks had failed
and closed. Daily millions of Americans were lining up at the remaining banks to withdraw
their savings before their bank also declared bankruptcy. During the previous three years
every economic policy initiative thought to be relevant had been applied, but failed to stem
collapse of the system. FDR knew that the principles of economics he had studied at Harvard
were inadequate to stem the crisis. He understood that the collapse of the system was the
result of subjective factors that could not be readily addressed at the institutional or policy
level. So he addressed the American people on radio in the first of what became known as
his fireside chats. He explained to them that all the objective factors that had made America
prosperous were still present—the rich natural resources, hard-working people, huge
industrial infrastructure and continental market. He diagnosed and told them that the real
problem was not any objective factor. It was rather their own loss of self-confidence and faith
in America. He appealed to their courage and national pride. In immortal words, he told them
that the only thing they had to fear was fear itself. During that week legislation was passed
instituting insurance on bank deposits and other safeguards. He asked the people to return
to their banks on the following Monday and redeposit their hard earned savings. Once again
long lines grew in front of the banks, but this time most of the people had come to redeposit
their money and the bank crisis subsided.
This famous event illustrates several important aspects of the change needed. First, it
illustrates that economy, politics, society, and culture are inseparable dimensions of a single
integrated reality. The perennial public debate over the role of government in regulating
markets is misplaced. There are no markets without government regulation. Without an
infrastructure of law to protect property and contract rights, without a judicial system to
enforce those rights, without public institutions to prevent collusion and monopoly control,
no market can be free and functional. So too, any economy is dependent on the prevailing
social norms, values, educational system, and a host of other social factors. Development of
a real science of economy will only be possible when economics is viewed as a subset and
integral aspect of the larger society of which it is a part.
Second, this event illustrates the equal or greater importance of underlying subjective
factors in the effective functioning of society. Every economics student is taught that the
economic system is founded on trust and confidence. Without it money has no value and
financial institutions cannot function. But although it is recognized as a necessity, it rarely
figures in the prevailing conceptual framework of economy, because economic theory is so
strongly grounded in objective, material factors. Like every social institution and activity,
106
A Brief History of Mind and Civilization Garry Jacobs
107
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
in the past, it seems equally reasonable to assume that we have not yet exhausted the limits
of human consciousness, individually or collectively. Challenges are opportunities. Crises
are a spur to evolution.
Mind has a remarkable capacity for adaptation and development. But it also reveals a
tendency to tenaciously cling to its past achievements, adamantly persist in its present line
of activity, resist evolutionary departures and circle around for long periods in repetitive
affirmation of what it already knows and believes. Our current preoccupation with physical,
technological and organizational solutions to problems is an instance of that repetitive
tendency. The perspective of history reveals larger movements and longer cycles that vary
from age to age, civilization to civilization. It may well be that we are approaching the end
of one of those cycles and need to prepare for a more significant reframing of the basis for
knowledge and civilization in the age to come.
11.1. Science, Philosophy and Religion
Symbolism, intuitive insight, metaphysical intellect and experiment science have all made
important contributions to the evolution of civilization. Stages can be identified in which
each of them has played a dominate role in deciphering and representing reality. The
profound truths of existence arrived at by the great religious traditions were the result of
direct spiritual experience which could not be rendered into logical discourse or confirmed
by the experimental methods of modern science. So too in great periods of philosophy, the
rational mind sought for answers to questions that still and in all likelihood will always lie
beyond the purview of experimental science. Science in turn has uncovered patterns, laws
and formulas in the mysteries of physical nature that generate a sense of wonder as profound
as the visions of mystics and logos of sages.
All three have contributed to the collective quest of humanity for knowledge. At different
periods of history, each has attempted to dominate the other two, even to the extent of nearly
or completely eclipsing their role. Science and philosophy developed side by side in ancient
Greece and during the enlightenment. The breakdown of dialogue between them acquired
the character of a divorce only in the second half of the 20th century.46 Today intellectual
discussion regarding fundamental questions of nature has very largely been supplanted by
experimentation and data-based analysis within existing conceptual framework of modern
science.
Experimental science, philosophic speculation and spiritual experience represent
developments of three different and complementary powers. They only appear contradictory
from the narrow vantage of any one perspective. That explains why even in our advanced
scientific culture, great scientists point to intuition as the source of their greatest creative
contributions to the progress of knowledge. Thus, the cryptic formula in the Upanishads “One
indivisible that is pure existence” and in the Bhagavad Gita “Indivisible, but as if divided
in things”, were rendered into intellectual statements about oneness, unity, and union by the
classical Greek philosophers more than a thousand years later and confirmed by science in
the discoveries of physicists two thousand years after that.*
* Chhandogya Upanishad translated and quoted by Sri Aurobindo in The Life Divine, p.70, 159,231.
108
A Brief History of Mind and Civilization Garry Jacobs
The persistent intellectual and practical problems humanity confronts today are an
opportunity to recall that our powers of knowing as well as our body of knowledge are
evolving simultaneously. The apparent limitation of present knowledge is a reminder that
the progress of knowledge depends on expanding our field of vision to encompass wider
ranges of reality and deepening our perception from the observation of external appearances
to integrate and unify the objective and subjective dimensions of reality.
Notes
1. William Byers, The Blind Spot: Science and the Crisis of Uncertainty (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.
2. Garry Jacobs, “New Paradigm: the Necessity and the Opportunity,” Cadmus2, no.2 (2014): 09-23.
3. Ivo Šlaus and Garry Jacobs, “In Search of a New Paradigm for Global Development,” Cadmus 1, no.6 (2013):1-7.
4. Janani Harish, “Society and Social Power,” Cadmus 2, no.3(2014):37-49.
5. Garry Jacobs, “Uncorking the Future: Transitions to a New Paradigm,” Cadmus 2, no.4 (2015): 69-82.
6. Garry Jacobs, “Ways of Knowing,” Eruditio 1, no.4(2014):9-30.
7. Garry Jacobs, “Limits to Rationality and the Boundaries of Perception,” Eruditio 1, no.2 (2013):108-118.
8. Peter Watson, Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention from Fire to Freud (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2005), 47.
9. Merlin Donald, A Mind so Rare (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2001), 260
10. Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1955), 507.
11. Donald, A Mind so Rare, 262.
12. Sri Aurobindo, The Human Cycle (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1962), 7.
13. Watson, Ideas, 6.
14. Watson, Ideas,52.
15. “Mind is an instrument of analysis and synthesis, but not of essential knowledge. Its function is to cut out something vaguely
from the unknown Thing in itself and call this measurement or delimitation of it the whole, and again to analyse the whole into
its parts which it regards as separate mental objects.” Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, 127.
16. Watson, Ideas, 8.
17. Watson, Ideas, 160
18. Watson, Ideas, 539
19. Watson, Ideas, 394
20. William Byers, Deep Thinking (Hackensack: World Scientific, 2015)
21. Herbert Weisberg, Willful Ignorance: The Measure of Uncertainty (Hoboken: Wiley, 2014)
22. Weisberg, Willful Ignorance.
23. Although, as Popper points out, probability statements are neither verifiable nor falsifiable, they came to occupy a central place
in the practice of science. Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (New York: Routledge, 2002), 183.
24. Byers, Blind Spot.
25. Byers, Blind Spot, 103-104.
26. Orio Giarini, “Science and Economics: The Case of Uncertainty & Disequilibrium,” Cadmus 1, no.2(2011): 25-34.
27. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbably (New York: Random House, 2010), xxii.
28. Taleb, Black Swan, xxvi.
29. Weisberg, Willful Ignorance.
30. Garry Jacobs and Ivo Šlaus, “Recognizing Unrecognized Genius,” Cadmus I, no.5(2012):1-5.
31. Byers, Deep Thinking.
109
CADMUS Volume 2 - Issue 6, May 2016
40. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970),122-123
41. “Reason, on the contrary, proceeds by analysis and division and assembles its facts to form a whole; but in the assemblage so
formed there are opposites, anomalies, logical incompatibilities, and the natural tendency of Reason is to affirm some and to
negate others which conflict with its chosen conclusions so that it may form a flawlessly logical system.” Sri Aurobindo, The
Life Divine, 69.
42. Garry Jacobs, “Overcoming the Educational Time Warp: Anticipating a Different Future,” Cadmus 2, no.5 (2015):.1-13.
43. Max Delbrück, Mind from Matter: An Essay on Evolutionary Epistemology (Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications,
1986),167.
44. Garry Jacobs and Ivo Šlaus, “The Power of Money,” Cadmus 1, no.5(2012): 68-73.
45. Garry Jacobs, “The Emerging Individual,” Eruditio 1, no.1 (2012): 9-30.
46. Popper comments on the efforts of Positivism to overthrow and annihilate metaphysics. Popper, The Logic of Science, 13.
110