Abstract –

Historically, spiritual and religious beliefs have been sidelined in mainstream psychology and academia. Rollo May highlights the absence of terms like “symbol” and “myth” in standard psychology textbooks. Similarly, there is a lack of references to spirit, spirituality, or religion in comprehensive handbooks of self, identity, and social psychology. Clifford Geertz’s 1965 definition of religion, which was widely accepted in the social sciences, excludes key characteristics such as community, identity, teachings, and spirit. Yet, a fundamental characteristic of religions is that they are groups and communities, as well as the fact that identity is a critical aspect of religious affiliation. The role of common symbolization in forming groups and creating social order is emphasized by Elzbieta Halas, D Balaganapath, as well as Durkheim. Historically, myths of ancient divinity created a “common symbolization” that focused on social order. Furthermore, Symbols evoke powerful emotions and are intricately connected with motivations. National, religious, and spiritual symbols can polarize and magnetize individuals, influencing their attitudes and behaviors. The Synthesis Consensus of Viktor Frankl, Carl Jung, and William James is that spirit, spiritual, and religious beliefs create meaning, a sense of reality, and ultimately structure reality and truth – which is a useful framework for understanding spirituality!

Life, creation and consciousness – “force beyond anything that we can comprehend”!! Setting the Stage: Outside Perspective on Social Science – Static Realty vs Dynamic Force

Philo of Alexandria provides an excellent insight into the limits of consciousness. He states “The mind which is in each of us is able to comprehend all other things, but has not the capability of understanding itself. For as the eye sees all other things, but cannot see itself, so also the mind perceives the nature of other things but cannot understand itself.” ~  It stands to reason that human consciousness can only understand and analyze itself via a “frame of reference’ – or mindset – from within human consciousness – and several scholars have observed that the only way to evaluate human consciousness is by using a mirror – in one sense or another. The “materialist view that quantification equates to science and materialism is objective is false. Iain McGilChrist observes that it is the opposite and that the materialist “rigid adherence to arbitrary quantification” “limits and restricts” possible analyses. Half of human consciousness isn’t quantifiable: art, music, dreams, creato9vioty, imagination, , as well as symbolism which is complex and outside the scope of strict quantification – not to mention “death”. Rene Guenon is a bit more focused in stating that the materialist ideology is the “denial of everything that is of a supra-individual order” (p.90) Guenon’s assessment appears to be generally correct. E Halas, R. May, as well as Mustafa Emirbayer (to an extent) indicate symbolism was sidelined and marginalized. D Hay, K Gergen, and V. Enriquez emphasize that the western “rational Individualism norm has morphed into a form of extreme individualism. That is because “social consciousness” is a “supra-individual” concept. In Wikipedia, there are only three references to social consciousness – the most salient being to Karl Marx the creator of Marxism and Communism. Karl Mannheim, (1893 – 1947), a founding father of sociology stated that “we must realize once and for all that the meanings which make up our world are simply an historically determined and continuously developing structure in which man develops, and are in no sense absolute” (Mullins). Besides Mannheim, Guenon, and McGilChrist, there are a number of other critics of materialism including Talcott Parson, Rupert Sheldrake, Jeremiah Reyes, and Arran Gare

 Guenon states materialism specifically “denies” spirituality because spiritual “authority is “supra-individual in nature, The “materialist model” of spirituality is “All spirituality is unreal” – based on the materialist maxim that spirituality is “intangible and beyond the senses” as explained by William R. Miller and Carl E. Thoresen. First, that is a fallacy – the Definist Fallacy to be exact. For instance, take the concept of “Death”. Death, of course is “intangible and beyond the senses, Yet, following the materialist argument Death becomes a figment of your imagination – which is absurd of course. Furthermore, there are a number of “tangible” types of spirituality such as compassion, grieving, musical spirituality, art and so on. A derivative of the materialist maxim is the concept of the “supernatural” – which by definition is outside the scope of science and thus lacks any real-world context-evidence which is necessary for a valid scientific theory according to Kant, McGilChrist, Muzafer Sherif) – which makes the “supernatural” an artificial abstraction which is scientifically and academically worthless. My argument is that in light of the “selective attention” process which is acknowledged as a critical process in the human mind – re-directs and mis-directs attention from functional spirituality to an empty and meaningless artificial abstraction.

Long ago Aristotle described the scientific process as a 4 step process: 1. Gather the facts 2. Categorize the evidence into types 3. Analyze the evidence 4. Draw conclusions. It is a bit mindboggling that the mistake materialists made was so simple and fundamental. Materialists failed to distinguish between “tangible” and “intangible” – labeling all spirituality as “intangible” and “supernatural”. There are a number of very “tangible” types of spirituality! 1. Spirituality of Compassion (Sprecher, S, B Fehr 2005; Saslow, Laura Rose 2011) 2. Musical Spirituality: 3. Spiritual Healing in Grieving 4. Children’s Spirituality 5. Artistic Spirituality 6. Poets and Prophecy 7. Dream Weaving/Creative Transcendence 8. divinity in nature – earth as a living force 9. Spirituality and Autism 10. pro-social norms. Another major methodology flaw is that materialists failed to distinguish bet6ween the “divine” and the supernatural. There is a world of difference between “divine” and “supernatural”. For instance, Celtic Spirituality and Celtic Catholicism holds “A deep reverence for nature is a central conviction in Celtic Spirituality. Creation is revelation. God’s presence permeates all of creation. Every single piece of it. Celtic Spirituality holds that the Divine is incarnate in all of creation.” In the context of beliefs, “divinity” would also be a “tangible” type of spirituality.

Social consciousness can be difficult to understand. If ever there was a social-political movement that centered on thoughts and ideas, the Enlightenment would be it. The Enlightenment, or Age of Reason, which began in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries were an intellectual and philosophical force created by social-political-religious ideas that dominated the world of ideas in Europe and generated major changes in the culture of Western Civilization. Furthermore, human consciousness has developed and ‘evolved’ through the various stages in human history- from the stone age to the iron age to moder industrial civilization – so. It would appear readily apparent that an influential factor in understanding human consciousness would be “Consciousness as drive and force”!  That would be especially relevant in context of cross-cultural understanding such as Filipino values like Bayanihan, Kapwa, loob. In the essay, “Myths as Symbolic Maps of Social-Moral Order”, I stress the historical connection and correlation between spiritual beliefs and social-moral order – which supports Emile Durkheim’s view of religion as the foundation of morality – that religious experiences generate shared values and beliefs that bind society together. There is a major point made by Saslow that there is a difference between spiritual processes and religiosity processes – and that spiritual processes are more closely connected with prosocial values such as compassion. Many scholars who are anti-religious lump spirituality in with religiosity and throw spirituality away – when it appears readily apparent that spirituality is closely correlated with prosocial values such as compassion and community.

Human Consciousness as a Dynamic Force and Evolutionary Drive

Evolutionary Perspective & Genetics of Spiritual-Religious Beliefs 

•       Terrence Deacon and Tyrone Cashman observe that “The scientific investigation of the human religious predisposition has recently been augmented by considering it from an evolutionary perspective.”

•       Genetic Origins of Stone Worship: Tim Spector, in the article, What Twins Reveal About The Science Of Faith (Popular Science, August 8, 2013) states, “They [the researchers] estimated the heritability of spirituality to be around 40 to 50 percent, which is quite high considering how tricky it is to measure. Other U.S. studies using even more detailed questions in larger numbers have found similar or even stronger genetic influences. These studies demonstrate our variable but innate inherited sense of spirituality, which affects how we perceive the world, ourselves and the universe. This is independent of our formal religious beliefs

Durkheim and Human Agency

Mustafa Emirbayer observes, “From the mid-1960s through much of the 1980s, Durkheim’s contributions to historical comparative sociology were decidedly marginalized; the title of one of Charles Tilly’s essays, “Useless Durkheim, ” conveys this prevailing sensibility with perfect clarity . Here, by contrast, I draw upon writings from Durkheim’s later “religious “period to show how Durkheim has special relevance today for debates in the historical-comparative field….. Ideas of a Durkheimian tenor were, amid these debates, decidedly marginalized; there seemed little or no place for Durkheim in the theory and practice of historical comparative sociology (for a rare exception, see Bellah 1959).

However, whatever the causes, in the past decade or so American sociologists began once again to cast a sympathetic eye upon the writings and insights of Durkheim as an historical analyst. Most responsible for this development was the fact that, along with the new paradigms and the ascendancy of Weber and Tocqueville (as well as Marx), there emerged a heightened interest in cultural theory and in the systematic analysis of symbolic structures and discourses. Not content with the achievements of one-sidedly materialist (and anticultural) perspectives, researchers sought increasingly to incorporate the symbolic dimension of social life into their accounts of institutional and cultural processes. Finally, although these structural environments profoundly influence empirical social action, I argue that the latter is also influenced by the dynamic moment of human agency itself. I understand by agency “the engagement by social actors of their different environments, an engagement that both reproduces and transforms those structures in interactive response to the problems posed by changing historical situations”

Consciousness as human agency, social-psychic force, and evolutionary drive

Human evolution – the evolution of human consciousness clearly developed in stages.  Cultural evolution began in the Stone Age with hunter-gatherer societies The Stone Age evolved from paleolithic and Mesolithic hunter gatherers to neolithic agrarian villages – which evolved into complex Iron Age civilizations which developed technological advancements like agriculture, pottery, and metalworking, as well as the critical invention of writing for record-keeping and cultural communication across time. The Metal Ages went from copper-chalcolithic Age to the Bronze Age and eventually the Iron Age which saw emergence of sophisticated social structures and complex societies. It would stand to reason that evolutionary adaptive traits played a large role in these rather dramatic and monumental changes. The stage of stone worship does allow us to apply the ideas of religious beliefs in the context of group and community formation as well as a product of very powerful forces in terms of human consciousness as an evolutionary adaptive force. 

Social Consciousness and Group Formation

Throughout the entire history of humanity, religions – which are groups – have formed and reformed.  So, it would stand to reason – that, while religious beliefs are complex, a very salient and significant function of religions is to form groups. Furthermore, looking at religion from the “groups perspective” does highlight different aspects. Rituals from the perspective of the group then function to gain the submission of the individual through participation in group activities. An overview of religions shows the importance and significance of festivals, celebrations and group related rituals. An ancient Athenian calendar revealed that all but one day had a religious festival of one sort or other scheduled. The Australian Aborigines, in the offseason held religious rituals-celebrations every day. Preparing body decorations can take hours. That would again seem to suggest that group formation is intrinsic to religious belief.

Consciousness as Dynamic Force and Evolutionary Force and Social Role

Preface: Proper knowledge maps or mirrors the actualities of the real world!!”   – K Gergen: 2, “To understand something, whether we are aware of it or not, depends on choosing a model!”    I McGilChrist

Models of social-moral order

1. Erica Hill’s Model as “dynamic social behaviours embedded within the context of daily life of arctic hunter gatherer and beliefs in animal spirits as “human relations with the natural world”; “Their thoughts and actions established and maintained relationships with prey animals and may be more productively conceptualized as dynamic social behaviours embedded within the context of daily life than as privileged ritual acts.” – and the beliefs focused attention (evolutionary adaptive selective attention) of the community on the activity of hunting-gathering of animals.

2. Emile Durkheim’s model: “The forces before which the believer bows are not simple physical energies, such as are presented to the sense and the imagination; they are social forces,” 

3. Ramon Reyes Model from prehistoric societies in the Philippines: “In sum, one social and moral order encompasses the living, the dead, the deities and the spirits, and the total environment.”

Symbolism as the mechanism that facilitates group formation.

a. Elzbieta Halas Model of Social Symbolism: Halas states that “groups exist only on the ground of common symbolization of their members.”  “The processes of symbolization…create a social order, express meaning and control actions. Symbols are not autonomous. They constitute tools of action, indicating and dramatizing social relations”

b. D. Balaganapath observes: “The basis of every culture and every identity is determined by its own established common symbolic expression.”  

c.  In a similar vein, Rapport observes, “Few if any societies break the world into the more or less distinct systems distinguished by Western science. Not all of them, surely, distinguish environmental from social relations. Moreover, these understandings and principles, which in the Maring view, account for the structure and state of the world and invest the world and actions in it with meaning, are not confined to the particular material and social regulations regulated. They include as well metaphysical abstractions of great generality.  (p. 116 Ecology, Meaning and Religion, Roy Rappaport, North Atlantic Books, 1979)

d.  Mannheim’s Model – Historical Synergy between economic political reality and Metaphysical Truths: “Mannheim holds that historical and political thought is determined by the socio-historical location of the thinker and the political aspirations and material ambitions of the group or groups to which he belongs. Such thought is inherently value-laden, one-sided, distorted, and therefore false. In short, all systems of historical-social-political thought are ideologies”!  (p.143 Truth and Ideology: Reflections on Mannheim’s Paradox by Willard A. Mullins, History and Theory, Vol. 18, No. 2 (May, 1979), pp. 141-154)

Keywords spirituality, faith, worship, ritual, sacred texts, mythology, allegory, signs, religious symbols, sacred objects, symbolic meaning, common symbolization, emotional symbolism, emotional symbolism, spirituality energized, meaning creation, social-moral order, morality, Identity, spiritual self

 

Historically, symbolism, spiritual and religious beliefs have been sidelined and marginalized –

Materialist methodology sidelined and marginalized myths and symbolism

1.      Rollo May, an American existential psychologist and author, observes, “There has been a radical change during the past three decades… Neither term, “symbol” or “myth,” even appears in the index of the standard psychology textbooks.”

2.      Sociologist Elzbieta Halas had parallel observations on how symbolism had been largely marginalized as an epiphenomenon. Elzbieta Halas states: “Too often symbolism is thought of as an epiphenomenon, a phenomenon that is derivative of what are considered to be more important factors, such as business, resources, power, organization, etc. which are allegedly ‘objective’ facts.”

3.     Balaganapath (echoed by Halas, not to mention Kant) alasHalas explains an underlying cause is “The meanings that these symbolic forms transmit are complex. Instead of standing for a single referent, they evoke a variety of meanings, some of which may be ambiguous.” – which is beyond the strict materialist methodology with, as McGilChrist points out, a “rigid adherence” to the arbitrary principle of quantification.

4.      Similarly, Mustafa Emirbayer observes that “From the mid-1960s through much of the 1980s, Durkheim’s contributions to historical comparative sociology were decidedly marginalized; the title of one of Charles Tilly’s essays, “Useless Durkheim, ” conveys this prevailing sensibility with perfect clarity…. Not content with the achievements of one-sidedly materialist (and anticultural) perspectives, researchers sought increasingly to incorporate the symbolic dimension of social life into their accounts of institutional and cultural processes.”[1] Materialism as several scholars have noted, has a bias for “Rational Individualism” which converts easily into an anti-cultural and, effectively, an anti-social bias. In Wikipedia there are only three references to social consciousness (vs collective consciousness, social identity theory, or social cognition theory) – the most salient being to Karl Marx, creator of Marxism – Communism.

5.    Terrence Deacon and Tyrone Cashman also observe that “The major oversight of these evolutionary accounts [of religion] is their lack of attention to the human capacity to communicate and think symbolically.” 

6.    Confucius, a Chinese philosopher and spiritual leader who lived from 551 to 479 BCE, observed long ago, “Signs and symbols rule the world, not words or laws.” Modern History has proved Confucius right. For instance, the Nazi’s were masters at manipulating nationalist symbols particularly in their mass rallies of uniformed Nazis with displays of huge Swastika Flags – not to mention the Nazi salute. Of course, Religious Symbols are also very powerful today – such as the symbol of Jesus Christ on the cross. The power of symbolism could be illustrated by the yearly 140-mile pilgrimage to the Black Madonna in Poland.   

Spiritual and religious beliefs sidelined and marginalized. Similar to Rollo May’s observation that “Neither term, “symbol” or “myth,” even appeared in the index of the standard psychology textbooks,” spirituality has also been sidelined and marginalized in mainstream psychology! In a 700 plus page comprehensive ‘History of Psychology’ – titled “The Story of psychology” – by Morton Hull, and find there is not have one single reference to meaning, spirit, spirituality, or even religion. That being said I should add that Morton Hull did highlight the archaic references in ancient Greek philosophy but left out spirituality as expounded by Jung, Frankl, and William James. I thought perhaps this could possibly been just one individual’s prejudices, so I checked into my comprehensive “reference handbooks” for Self and Identity, as well as, Social Psychology. To my dismay, I discovered there was not a single reference to either spirit, spirituality, or religion. Furthermore, evidence that spirituality was sidelined is the fact that, currently, there is a consensus among researchers that spirituality is an “emerging field of research”:

Geertz’s 1965 five-part definition of religion

Geertz’s 1965 five-part definition of religion which was “universally accepted” in the social sciences as Ira Chernus pointed out – left out several very important characteristics of religions and religious beliefs. For instance, it is readily apparent that religions are communities and groups – yet that was excluded from Geertz’s universally accepted definition of religion. Ira Chernus states “One of the most influential figures in this social-scientific approach to religion is the anthropologist, Clifford Geertz. In an essay titled “Religion as a Cultural System” (1965), he [Geertz] spelled out a definition of religion that many others have borrowed, adapted, and employed in studying religion…..“(1) a system of symbols (2) which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men (3) by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.”[2]

Shortcomings of Geertz’s Universally Accepted Definition of Religion

1. Religions are communities and groups It is self-evident that religions are groups and communities. In fact, the most salient characteristic of religions are in terms of religions as groups and communities.  Ironically, “The top word millennials used to describe their ideal environment for worship is “community,” followed closely by “sanctuary.” “Millennial Christians……. are attracted to churches whose focus is not only on the members, but on the community and the world.”   – Yet none of the millennials brought that question up when studying religion apparently. 
2. Identity is a very critical characteristic of religion. Baumeister observe that members of groups “easily and readily” adopt the norms and values of groups.  Also, Gergen and other scholars emphasize – Identities are largely formed around group-related associations (ethnic, religious, nationality, etc)[3] The study by Desmet, Klaus, Ignacio Ortuño-Ortín, and Ömer Özak. “Is secessionism mostly about income or identity? indicates that economic forces tend to be secondary when it comes to understanding secessionism.” – and concludes Identity is the major factor in secessionism. The modern anti-science movement has some characteristics similar to secessionist movements There are innumerable illustrations of the powerful role of identity from historical-sociological illustrations. I argue the anti-science movement is about identity – not science.
3. Cathar Martyrs: The ancient city of Minerve in southern France, named after a temple to the Roman god Minerva, was the site of a ten-week siege by Simon de Montfort during the Cathar Crusades in 1210. A double curtain wall, as well as overhanging natural ledges provided a defense for the city. Simon de Montfort set up four catapults around the fortification. Three catapults attacked the village, while the largest, affectionately named the Malevoisine (“Bad Neighbour”) attacked the town’s water supply. Eventually, Viscount Guilhem of Minerve and the 200 men of his garrison were forced to negotiate, and in the end surrendered to Simon de Montfort. The citizens of Minerve, after surrendering, were given the option of converting to Catholicism or death. One hundred forty (by some accounts there were 180 Cathars) Cathars chose death rather than convert to Catholicism, and were burned at the stake. Today, there are a few vestiges of the medieval castle remaining though there exist to this day some monuments to the Cathar martyrs. What makes this illustration so striking is that the Cathars had a dualistic view of the world in which the demiurge controlled the world and that Jeus Christ was not a real person – only a spiritual metaphor.
4. Valley Forge: The winter at Valley Forge (1777-1778) was severe and brutal, marked by extreme cold, deep snow, and widespread hunger and disease, which devastated the Continental Army. Soldiers lacked proper clothing and shelter, with many going barefoot in the snow and living in inadequate tents and rudimentary wooden huts. The harsh conditions led to widespread illness, with the loss of thousands of lives to disease and malnutrition, and many soldiers deserting the army. On top of that the continental money was next to worthless – so the pay was bad too.  “While wintering in the camp, soldiers worked together to build huts for shelter, but unsanitary conditions, and shortages of food and blankets contributed to the disease and exhaustion which continually plagued the camp. The lack of clothing alone, including shoes, socks, and coats left as many as 3,000 of Washington’s troops unfit for service, creating the image of starving, wearied soldiers leaving bloodied footprints in the snow and ice. A Continental Army Private, Joseph Plumb Martin wrote that the army’s new winter quarters left them “in a truly forlorn condition,—no clothing, no provisions, and as disheartened as need be.” (Winter at Valley Forge Updated November 28, 2023  •  September 21, 2017 American Battlefield Trust)

3. Teachings of religion: It is self-evident that the teachings of religion are without doubt, a primary “function” of religions. As Elzbieta and other scholars emphasize that “common symbolization” form groups and create order. Spiritual/religious beliefs are a social consciousness as well as a system of symbols [4] Truth, Justice, Laws-Commandments, and Compassion are all teachings common to religions. Religious teachings are the beliefs, doctrines, rituals, laws, and moral principles that define a particular religion, often derived from sacred texts and narratives intended to provide meaning to life, explain the origin of the universe, and guide human behavior. They encompass instructions on how to live, interact with others, and relate to the divine, covering topics such as ethics, justice, compassion, and veneration of God or gods.

4. “Spirit” is a universal characteristic in religious beliefs – but effectively wiped off the academic map by materialists. In religion, “spirit” refers to a vital force that animates life and distinguishes it from the material body, and also can denote non-physical supernatural entities or beings with influence over the natural world. Concepts of spirit vary widely, but often include a divine force (like the Holy Spirit), a fundamental natural principle, or the non-physical essence of a living being.

5. Evolutionary Adaptive Selective attention trait as a pivotal function which focuses attention and over-rides competing needs and desires – for instance to assure total commitment to hunter-gatherer goals. With the beliefs in animal spirits.

6. Ideology: It is self-evident that religions are in part ideologies which invoke the ingroup-ouitgrousp syndrome that is divisive and can tap into horrifically powerful emotions and instincts.  

Introduction: Emile Durkheim

Émile Durkheim saw religion as the foundation of morality, arguing that religious experiences generate shared values and beliefs that bind society together. He believed that the sacred objects and concepts within religion are actually symbolic representations of the collective society, and that the collective moral authority of the group manifests through religious rituals and symbols. For Durkheim, the decline of traditional religion could lead to a societal crisis if new forms of collective experience, like political or civic movements, did not emerge to provide this binding moral cement.

Symbolism and Community-Group formation Synopsis of Social Symbolism

The Sociologist, Elzbieta Halas states, “groups exist only on the ground of common symbolization of their members.” Halas goes on to say that “The processes of symbolization…. create a social order, express meaning and control actions. Symbols are not autonomous. They constitute tools of action, indicating and dramatizing social relations” It would appear readily evident that the myths of ancient divinity created a “common symbolization” which as I show here did have a significant focus or selective attention on social order.

As Emile Durkheim emphasized, “The forces before which the believer bows are not simple physical energies, such as are presented to the sense and the imagination; they are social forces!” An overview of Mesopotamian gods reveals numerous examples of symbolic maps of social consciousness: Shamash, Marduk, Enki, Nabu, Inanna, Enlil, and Anu

Symbol creation creates culture and symbols are created by culture A synopsis of symbolism.

Balaganapathi states: “It was the exercise of the symbolic faculty that brought culture into existence and it is the use of symbols that makes the perpetuation of culture possible. Without the symbol there would be no culture and man would be merely an animal, not a human being…. Our contact with the world outside is based on symbols. Our language is nothing but symbols. The scripts are still more so. Our art, our poetry, in fact, every aspect of life is based on symbols: We think in symbols, we act in symbols. We live in symbols; we learn in symbols!”  This view is also advanced by Leslie A. White as well as the famous anthropologist, Clifford Geertz. Balaganapathi goes on to say that “Though man and his life ultimately are symbolic, there are more evident symbols in man’s creation. These symbols are the substitutes or suggestions of abstract things. They are more concrete in nature. Thus, superimposing an idea on a thing or invoking a deity in an image is symbolization. Symbols are used for both concealment and revelation. They conceal partly the essential content from an ordinary person and partly reveal it by suggesting it.”  “Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason has often been cited as the most significant volume of metaphysics and epistemology in modern philosophy” (Wikipedia) John Glenn stresses that Kant (1724–1804) focused on symbols as “basic concepts (the categories and the ideas of reason) which the human mind employs can only come to be conceived because they are capable of being first presented in concrete symbolic form!”

Symbols Energize Emotions: National, Religious, Spiritual Symbolism

a. William James The Reality of the Unseen “The sentiment of reality can indeed attach itself so strongly to our object of belief that our whole life is polarized through and through, so to speak, by its sense of the existence of the thing believed in, an yet that thing, for purpose of definite description, can hardly be said to be present to our mind at all p.39 This absolute determinability of our mind by abstractions is one of the cardinal facts in our human constitution. Polarizing and magnetizing us as they do, we turn towards them and from them, we seek them, hold them, hate them, bless them, just as if they were so many concrete beings. And beings they are, beings as real in the realm which they inhabit as the changing things of sense are in realm of space. p. 47 In talking about symbolism in the realm of imagination, William James emphasizes the emotional powers that [they] determine our vital attitude as decisively as the vital attitude of lovers is determined by the habitual sense, by which each id haunted, of the other being in the world. p.48

b. Nancy Furlotti: In that light of the historical-genetic reality of the ancient idea-symbols of “spirit” would be best understood in terms of how the psychologist Donald Kalsched views archetypes: “Archetypal energy is rooted deep in the unconscious and it is ‘archaic’, primitive, and also ‘typical’. Archetypal energies and affects are not easily assimilated by the conscious mind. They can be luminous or dark, angelic or demonic, but because they exist in raw, unmediated form they tend to be over-powering.” Nancy Furlotti echoes that statement when she says, ” Affect emerges from archetypes, which are the a priori ordering principles of nature, the world, and the psyche. When an archetype is activated, energy is put in motion that does not adhere to the laws of causality, or time and space.” (Tracing a Red Thread: Synchronicity and Jung’s Red Book:(2010), Psychological Perspectives, 53:4, 455-478) Beliefs and ideas are very real and incredibly powerful. For perspective I would add that the idea of “spirit” as energy and force is very real, especially in light of a collective consciousness.

c. Donald Kalsched: “Archetypal energy is rooted deep in the unconscious and it is ‘archaic’, primitive, and also ‘typical’. Archetypal energies and affects are not easily assimilated by the conscious mind. They can be luminous or dark, angelic or demonic, but because they exist in raw, unmediated form they tend to be over-powering.”

d. “National attachment, a feeling of close personal attachment to one’s nation or state, is a powerful organizing force that has been a facet of all successful human societies.” (David Butz)

The powerful emotions and universality of “patriotism” would appear to be a very self-evident truth. In World War I, 11 million soldiers were killed and every single soldier was a patriot. The Battle of the Somme “was one of the bloodiest in history, with over a million men killed or wounded. The 57,470 casualties suffered by the British {in the first day of the battle], including 19,240 killed, were the worst in the history of the British Army.” This wholesale slaughter of men first emerged during the American Civil War. Toward the end of the civil war in the battle of Cold Harbor, union soldier pinned letters to their loved ones to their backs knowing the order for a frontal attack would result in their deaths.   It would take very powerful emotions to keep men committed in those horrific circumstances.      

Symbolism and Identity

D. Balaganapath observes: “The basis of every culture and every identity is determined by its own established common symbolic expression.”

During the Vatican’s crusade against the heretical sect the Cathars, the ancient city of Minerve in southern France was the site of a ten-week siege by Simon de Montfort in 1210. The citizens of Minerve, after surrendering, were given the option of converting to Catholicism or death. One hundred forty Cathars chose death rather than convert, and were burned at the stake. What is unique is that those 140 Cathars who chose death – died for a metaphor. The dualistic theology of the Cathars held that the physical world was a manifestation of evil by the demiurge Rex Mundi (king of the world) while God was entirely spiritual without any physical manifestation.  So, symbolism can invoke powerful emotions and are intricately connected with motivations in some circumstances.

The Synthesis-Consensus Model of Spirituality – of Viktor Frankl, Carl Jung, William James

Integrative Approach and Synthesis-Consensus of Viktor Frankl, William James and Carl Jung:

Spirit, spiritual and religious beliefs create meaning, a sense of reality, and ultimately meaning structures, reality, and truth

Dr. Paul Wong, a world renowned Christian psychologist, author/editor of The Human Quest for Meaning: Theories, Research, and Applications (Personality and Clinical Psychology), and keynote speaker at a recent worldwide logotherapy convention – after I approached him with a brief summary of my “New Approach,”  made some thoughtful comments after looking over my brief summary. Dr. Paul Wong observed that “Your approach is new in the sense of a broad-minded integrative approach, breaking down the artificial traditional divide between science and religious, or scientific psychology versus humanistic or psychoanalytic psychology.” He went on to suggest that a title of “A new integrative approach” would be suitable.” It is a bit mindboggling – but it actually is a “new” approach. I have not come across any mention in my research suggesting any awareness of the Consensus among Viktor Frankl, William James and Carl Jung.

Carl Jung: “Spirit gives meaning to his [man’s] life” – Carl Jung, a psychoanalyst and contemporary of Sigmund Freud, couldn’t have been clearer or more succinct when he made that simple but profound statement. (CW8:643) Jung observed, in the Collected Works (CW8: 648 -1968 revised) that “Life and spirit are two powers or necessities between which man is placed. Spirit gives meaning to his life, and the possibility of its greatest development. But life is essential to spirit, since its truth is nothing if it cannot live.” This is consistent with Jung’s strongly expressed belief that experiences are a primary influence on a person’s beliefs. In a remarkably parallel viewpoint William Gould observes that Viktor Frankl, who also believed human beings have “spirit,” argued that “Meaning analysis is based on three essential premises: the freedom of will; the will to meaning, and the meaning of life.” (p.42 Frankl: Life…) Here again “Spirit” appears to be moderated or influenced by both “life” and “will” – so the over simplistic statement that “spirit creates meaning and a sense of reality has several other significant forces influencing it. 

Viktor Frankl:

Dr. Paul Wong elaborates Viktor Frankl’s views regarding the nature and characteristics of spiritual or noetic (from nous)processes: “The noetic (spiritual, specifically human) dimension contains such qualities as our will to meaning [Frankl’s central concept of humanity’s primary drive] our goal orientation, ideas and ideals, creativity, imagination, faith, love that goes beyond the physical, a conscience beyond the superego, self-transcendence, commitments, responsibility, a sense of humor, and the freedom of choice making. The human dimension is the medicine chest of the logotherapist. Patients are made aware that they have these rich resources of health within.” (Fabry 1994 pp.18-19) (p.156) Also, Paul Wong notes that, like many other modern-day existentialist and positive psychologists,

William James: “They [abstractions (symbols) and spiritual emotions-experiences] determine our vital attitude as decisively as the vital attitude of lovers is determined by the habitual sense, …… They are convincing to those who have them as any direct sensible experiences can be, and they are, as a rule, much more convincing than results established by mere logic are……if you do have them, and have them at all strongly, the probability is that you cannot help regarding them as genuine perceptions of truth, as revelations of a kind of reality [my underlining] which no adverse argument, however unanswerable by you in words, can expel from your belief” is what William James emphasizes in his classic work, originally published in 1902, The Varieties of Religious Experiences. (P.47) William James goes on to say that religious experiences and spiritual experiences create and generate a “sense of reality” (p.48)

This consensus among four very prominent psychologists dovetails into the Elzbieta Halas Model of Social Symbolism: Halas states that “More profoundly, groups exist only on the ground of common symbolization of their members.”  “The processes of symbolization…create a social order, express meaning and control actions.” – and R Reyes “Social-Moral Order”, as well as Durkheim’s Social Forces I would re-emphasize that Throughout the entire history of humanity, religions – which are groups – have formed and reformed.  So, it would stand to reason – while religious beliefs are complex, a very salient and significant function of religions is to form groups, and that historically it would stand to reason that the stone worship is an expression of consciousness in terms of an evolutionary drive.

Selective Attention as an Evolutionary Adaptive Trait:

1 “Selective attention,” also called “selectivity bias”—the tendency to orient oneself toward and process information from only one part of our environment to the exclusion of other parts, no matter how obvious those parts may be.”[5]  – David DiSalvo

2 Selective Attention as an Evolutionary Adaptive Trait: “It is argued that selectivity in processing has emerged through evolution as a design feature of a complex multi-channel sensorimotor system, which generates selective phenomena of “attention”. Hommel, Bernhard et al [6]

3 Selective Attention Dovetails into the Mannheim Model Christina Maimone states “Ideology is, as Mannheim uses the term, a mode of thought that obscures the real condition of society (by filtering information) to the group holding the thought, thereby stabilizing the shared social reality of the mode of thought.  Groups are simply unable to see particular facts that would undermine their conception of the world…”[7]

Selective Attention and Spiritual Beliefs in Animal Spirits

First, I would highlight Eric Klinger’s statement that one function of emotions is to direct or focus attention[8]. In context of the “selective attention function, an example might be the haunter gatherer beliefs in animal spirits which Erica Hill describes in terms of human relations with the natural world  “Their thoughts and actions established and maintained relationships with prey animals and may be more productively conceptualized as dynamic social behaviours embedded within the context of daily life than as privileged ritual acts”[9]  which is a counterpoint to the “supernatural” fixation vs functionality/fruitfulness of materialists – as Brian Josephson emphasizes. [10]

The selective attention argument is that the beliefs in animal spirits and nature as a life force focus human attention on their source of sustenance and survival – and furthermore as William James, Kalsched, and Furlotti emphasize, spiritual symbols are associated with powerful emotions – so the end result would be the spiritual beliefs in animal spirits would be able to recruit social skills and so on in order to create a society focused on and directed to the natural-animal environment. 

Addendum: Teachings

Truth

There definitely do appear to be some subtle meanings and context intrinsic to some ancient Hebrew words. The Hebrew word “emet” which means “truth” is viewed by many to symbolize the ‘eternal” – in a way. The first letter of the Hebrew alphabet is the first letter of emet. The middle letter of emet is the middle letter of the alphabet, and the last letter of emet is the last letter of emet. In the Old testament there are almost innumerable passages about truth. In several passages the word “truth” appears to have a context of “righteousness’ perhaps because it might be that at that time truth was definitely not a philosophical concept but a down to earth ‘truth,’ as it were, and would probably include a contextual meaning of “truth” being the opposite of a “lie.” Personally, I like the prophet Jeremiah, in part because he was a fighter. He confronted the Jewish leaders several times. Jeremiah 4:2 states: “And you shall swear, Yahweh lives, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness; and the nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory.” Isaiah 61:8 states: “For I Yahweh love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.” And one needs to remember that the Islamic Quran has roots in many of the prophets in the Torah.

Truth is a pivotal and vital concept in Buddhism. Buddha, in a sutra, defines Nirvana as the ultimate Truth. The Four Noble Truths are an important pillar of Buddhism. In the passage in Quran 22:62 it states “It is a fact that ALLAH is the Truth, while the setting up of any idols beside Him constitutes a falsehood, and that ALLAH is the Most High, the Supreme.” Then in Quran 10:82 it emphatically states: “ALLAH establishes the truth with His words (the Quran).” Emily Esfahani Smith, the author of The Power of Meaning, talks in her book about her family life in a “meeting house” for Muslim Sufis. She observes, “Formal rituals also governed Sufi life. When the darvishes (from the Persian Darvīsh – or Dervish – which means a “guide”) greeted each other, they said Ya Haqq, “The Truth!” (p. 3)

In general, relative to Hinduism, it could be said that “Truth has a great significance in Hinduism, as an aspect of Brahman, a characteristic of existence, the support of creation, a quality of gods, moral virtue, philosophical concept, spiritual practice, instruction, and the personification of Dharma (Law) and Rta (Order).” ( http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/concepts/truth-sathyam.asp ) Gandhi, who achieved a huge following among Indians, gained a following in part because of his spiritual beliefs and his vow of poverty. It should be noted he was a follower of Lev Tolstoy, the radical Christian who strongly advocated an absolute commitment to nonviolence. In Gandhi’s spiritual and religious thinking there were several influences including Christian influences as well as Jainism. But, formally, he made a commitment to Advaita Vedanta Hinduism. It should be noted that the word “Advaita” connotates “not-two” which emphasizes the aspect of nondualism in consciousness. The essential belief of the Advaita Vedanta is that knowledge (Truth) of one’s true self or Atman (the spiritual life principle inherent in the real self) liberates a person from the cycle of rebirth (samsara). Along with self-knowledge and self-understanding, liberation can be achieved by the correct understanding of one’s true identity as Atman, the dispassionate and unmovable observer, and so, by doing this achieving the union of Atman and Brahman [self and God, as it were].

Compassion in Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism

It is also very true that the concept of compassion appears very salient and highly significant in all the major religions. Of course, most everyone has heard of Christ’s commandment to Matthew 22:36-40 – 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” It might surprise many people that the word “compassion-compassionate” is the most frequent occurring word in the Quran. For instance, “Indeed, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; and forbids indecency, and manifest evil, and wrongful transgression. He admonished you that you may take heed.” (Al Quran 16:91)

In Hinduism it should be said that the early Upanishads (sacred texts), focused largely on an introspective orientation had very few passages about compassion. However, in the later Upanishads, a vow of nonharm become a vital aspect of Hinduism. In modern Hinduism compassion is recognized as an integral aspect of dharma (perhaps expressed as the cosmic law).”According to Buddhism, which grew from its Hinduism roots, as it were, compassion is an aspiration or desire, a state of consciousness, a drive for all to be free from suffering. A central pillar of Buddha’s teaching was that in order to realize enlightenment, a person must develop two complementary qualities: wisdom (usually translated from the Sanskrit word prajna) and compassion. A more accurate rendering of the meaning of prajna might be understanding or discernment of the Buddha’s teaching, especially relative to anatta, the principle of no self. Genuine compassion must have both wisdom-understanding and loving-kindness-caring for others.

In General: Ethical Conduct and Morality:

Religions generally teach the importance of charity, kindness, and generosity towards others.

Honesty and Truthfulness: Many traditions emphasize speaking the truth and living with sincerity.

Justice: The concept of justice and fairness for all individuals and communities is a common thread.

Respect for Life: Teachings often prohibit harming or killing others.

Humility: A sense of humility in the face of a higher power or the vastness of the universe is often encouraged. 

While these are common themes, it’s important to remember that each religion has its own unique traditions, interpretations, and specific practices.

---

[1]  Useful Durkheim Mustafa Emirbayer: Sociological Theory, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Jul., 1996), pp. 109-130, American Sociological Association

[2] Geertz, Clifford. “Religion as a cultural system.” In Anthropological approaches to the study of religion, pp. 1-46. Routledge, 2013

[3] Gergen, Kenneth J. “The social constructionist movement in modern psychology.” (1992).

[4] Halas, Elzbieta. “Social symbolism: forms and functions–a pragmatist perspective.” In Studies in Symbolic Interaction, pp. 131-149. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2008.

[5] DiSalvo, David. 2013. “Your Brain Sees Even When You Don’t.” Forbes, June 23, 2013.

[6] Hommel, Bernhard, Craig S. Chapman, Paul Cisek, Heather F. Neyedli, Joo-Hyun Song, and Timothy N. Welsh. “No one knows what attention is.” Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 81 (2019): 2288-2303.

[7] Mannheim, Karl. Ideology and utopia. Routledge, 2013.

[8] Klinger, Eric. “Effects of motivation and emotion on thought flow and cognition: Assessment and findings.” In Personality research, methods, and theory, pp. 257-270. Psychology Press, 2014.

[9] Hill, Erica. “Animals as agents: hunting ritual and relational ontologies in prehistoric Alaska and Chukotka.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21, no. 3 (2011): 407-426.

[10] Josephson, Brian D. “Religion in the genes.” Nature 362, no. 6421 (1993): 583-583.