The Science Myth and Scientism
Author: Christopher Chayban
n this paper I will discuss Jung and the Jungian’s understanding on the modern myth of science. We will explore the issue of inflation and the psychological standpoint of science,” how science fits the shared projection of the culture, how science relates to aspects of myth and lastly, where the “Self” is found in science.
As with every story, the one telling the story is often just as important as the story itself. So, with the myth of science, we can’t point to any one particular individual as the founder but we can still discern the psychological position that science operates from. Jung says that the standpoint of the dominant attitude plays a decisive role and that the followers echo the model without thinking (i.e. follow unconsciously) and to seek out chinks in the opponent’s armor (CW 6 pg.446), which frequently is divinatory systems. Jung says clearly that, science is the domain of the thinking function (and more specifically but not limited to extraverted thinking) and that the other functions (especially feeling) naturally become subordinated (CW 6 pg.52). This immediately puts the science myth at a handicap and in a similar domain as dogmatized religion, because it is liable to a one-sided inflation. As a result of the inflation, we give it the name “Scientism.” Jung says that it makes no difference, psychologically, whether a man is oriented by the idea of God or by the idea of matter, that the service of facts can be just as religious as the service of ideals, and in our present cultural epoch, science is dominated by the object and religion by the subject (CW 6 pg.293). But he wanted to emphasize that the scientific point of view may seem utterly cheerless and pessimistic from the idealistic point of view and vice versa, they were both equally valid but coming from the other side of the coin (CW 6 pg.292). Von Franz says that the difference between science and divination is the central position they choose to operate from. Science takes the “rational” central position of repetition and valuing predictable results and facts whereas, divinatory methods take the “irrational” central position of chance (Number and Time pg. 219-220) and probability. Not encouragingly enough, Jung, lets us know that in his experience, most people are incapable of fully understanding any other standpoint than their own, that each new theory thinks every other one is wrong, that each truth from the typological standpoint is at most, one or two eighths of the truth, losing out on seven other equal truths, and that people don’t realize that they only see their psychology (CW 6 pg.446-447). Of course, this one-sided point of view is rooted in projection. The old projections don’t fit our models of reality anymore. There are no gods science says and Jung says they are right but not totally. The Gods are not out there but they are still within. So the projection of the Gods has been withdrawn from outside but not recognized consciously on the inside.
But if you’re living the myth, you often don’t know you’re in it. This is because of the projection and often shared projections. Von Franz says that the danger in science is to jump to conclusions and generalize which therefore blocks any further investigation and the theory in turn becomes dogmatized (Creation Myths pg. 147). There becomes an inflated sense of belief that science is soteriological and will solve everything. But the Heisenberg uncertainty principle attempts to protect against this (Number and Time pg.190). Jung said that he was afraid of two things, unconsciousness and modern science of which things like the atom bomb were in the hands of unconscious people. (Walker pg.34). Ironically enough, the unconsciousness of this inflation is identified with the archetypal of the chance gambler, rooted in the Navajo myth of the god “which can count all things.” Von Franz continues, “Human consciousness, the first “gambler” acquires some of the God’s tricks and thereby succumbs to an inflation.” (Number and Time pg.218-219). Of course, this identification with the Self is not an experiencing of the Self, because experience of the Self is a defeat for the Ego, and therefore contributes to the dissolution of the one-sided point of view and provides a window into eternity (Number and Time pg.261) and experience of the numinous. Science seems like it does a better job at contributing to meaninglessness and triviality, rather than inspire purpose and meaning.
Which brings us to the question of how science relates to myth? For one thing, the creation myths of antiquity certainly parallel the new theoretical models of creation. One motif that is prevalent is the “Dual Twin Creator” motif. Von Franz informs us that the “ cosmogony in physics which has been worked out by Jordan and Dirac, the whole cosmos originated from twin particles-from two electrons which were twin particles. There was neither time nor space; the time-space continuum only comes into existence with some content. In microphysics one finds also that there is not a single type of particle which does not have its antiparticle (Creation Myths pg. 119). And continues “You see in this cosmogony-projected onto matter-the same idea of the twin creators. Although this comes as a natural scientific idea and in this new form same archetypal structure behind the idea”(Creation Myths pg. 119-120). This parallels certain Native American twin creator gods myths, from the Achomavi or Munduruku tribe to name a few. Other science creation myths to explore is the “Big Bang” theory, and variation on that is the notion that we were created from a Type 2 supernova. The first thing to notice is obviously “bang” is a reference to sound, which reminds us of the Biblical statement, “in the beginning was the Word,” but the second part of the theory is that Type 2 supernovas are the only stars that produce metals (Facing the Gods, Van Eenwyk), thus not only exalting the importance of alchemy, but also to the idea that matter is a living thing. That there is life in the seemingly inert matter.
Now why is science so split science from divinatory systems? It is because we have reached such a high degree of consciousness. One of the functions of consciousness is to make distinctions between the opposites but the distinctions have become remote and far apart. But there are places where these two realms can come closer together again. The first place is to find it in the realm of numbers, which are archetypes that have remained conscious. The thinking bias sees these archetypes in the quantitative aspect, which involves order and sequence but there is also a mathematical feeling aspect, which shows the numerical value, intensity, and “field” of numbers. The thinking function sees the repetitious sixty-four combinations in DNA structure where as the correspondent feeling function uses the chance event system of the sixty-four hexagrams of the I-Ching (Number and Time pg.117). This gives way to the psychosomatic aspect of number which quantifies matter in the form of measure and qualifies it in the form of subjective meaning. Naturally giving rise to the notion of synchronicity and the unus mundus, Jung wanted to amplify the science myth by bringing Depth psychology and physics together, with his collaboration on the concept of synchronicity with physicist Wolfgang Pauli. Von Franz has done her best to carry out Jung’s wish but it still has a long way to go, because as we said, science is identified with the Self and has not had the experience of the Self.
So where could science find this experience of the Self? First of all, the Self is the archetype of order that is both the center and circumference. So, I think one place in science that the Self is found is in the aspect of number. The number is the center and circumference of science. It has a psychoid aspect (Number and Time pg.54) of reality of mind and matter and is a bridge between the two. We can see that, if we take the number ”one,” we can have a similar mythic image as a monotheistic god. Just as all gods ultimately come from the one chief god and that god is present in all gods, or there is only “one” god, so all numbers essentially come from the number one, and the number one is in all numbers as multiplier and divisor (Number and Time pg.64).
“If you are honest, you will doubt the truth of the myth because our present-day consciouniousness has no means of understanding it “…it [myth] can only be grasped by the intuitions of faith or by psychology…” (Jung, p. 528. M.C.)
I find the hubris humorous that some of the advocates of science display. I have nothing against science either, I find it absolutely necessary and useful. But it seems that field is utterly unable to see their inflation and the doors they close. Science is talked about like someone has won something and proceed to call spiritualists or out there theories as too “woo woo” and not in line with the laws of reason. I like Joe Rogan, but in one of his podcasts, he was talking to a physicist, making fun of Deepak Chopra and also the movie “What the bleep do we know?” as being too “woo woo.” Yet the physicist was talking about electrons being a paradox and not really being “there” but in a cloud where it appears only when you look at it located in space. Not a surprise, Joe was totally on board.
It seems to be that science is using a different language from traditional mythology and translating it to scientific mythology and playing up its own brand. I mean doesn’t it sound like Mercurius or some other coincidentia oppistorum/symbols of the self? The electron is there but also not there, just like Mercurius, “His fiery aspect was sulfurous, active and masculine, and yet invisible and working in secret. He was the fire of hell, “a rearrangement of the heavenly, spiritual powers in the lower, chthonic world of matter,” found in the centre of the earth, in the dragon’s belly” (Jung, Alchemical Studies, par. 257).
I think Jordan Peterson is ahead of the game and likely due to his study of Jung. He says the Bible isn’t scientific because there were no scientists up until five hundred years ago, so you can’t say it’s not scientific, there was no science as we know it now. Jordan includes science in his work but reserves the right that he doesn’t know everything. That it isn’t exactly self-evident that we know what these religions/myths were talking about. My thinking is that, the language of your stomach for example, when it growls, is speaking to you and letting you know that it is hungry. How do we know that the stomach isn’t an entity, any more than God or some mythological image isn’t an entity? So, in the psyche images are the medium that speak to you, and the best way to understand the language of myths, not microscopes.
Maybe we who study Jung, are liable to just as big of an inflation as the scientific bends and pushing for intuitive methods too much. The slogan “check yourself, before you wreck yourself,” comes to mind and I find typology really aids in this. Using all eight functions to get the whole point of view, rather than only coming from one corner of the world, like the thinking function and only directing our will towards what is rational etc. But even typology has an archetype and the myth of the number four or double quaternion behind it.
In another podcast, Joe Rogan mentioned that he had went to Catholic school when he was younger. I wonder if most of the scientific world is misplacing its hurt by saying things are not rational because they feel betrayed by their childhood myth. There is always a great amount of affect and trying to dominate when talking science and religion (hence a complex present). When it becomes overkill, it means it’s personal. Jordan Peterson says there is no real conflict between science and religion if we take the concept that there is a unified reality. They must converge somewhere.
I watched a TED talk of Stephen Hawking the other day about the “Big Questions to ask ourselves.” In this talk, he said that we either are the only intelligent life form in the universe or other life forms have killed themselves off. Something struck me about “the only intelligent life forms,” and reminding me of Jung saying how modernity is “proud of its rationality.” How do we know that Jupiter is not an intelligent life form and the form it took is a giant sphere of whose language we do not understand. Just like we don’t understand the noises of the body or the images of the psyche.
I actually am not that optimistic about the Big Bang Theory as you might think because it’s reductionist and causal in nature which in the long run. I think it’s a big win for the science myth, don’t get me wrong but for me it’s not inspiring. But I lean towards the violet archetype end of the spectrum (if that wasn’t obvious already) rather than the infrared spectrum. I think if we dove deep into alchemy then the Big Bang might be balanced out by the two poles. Interesting to note that Type 2 Supernovas which is the kind of star our Sun is, are the only type of stars that carry metals within them. That’s why I think alchemy and it’s study of the metals is important.
Science is wonderful and necessary but at the end of the day, it’s a myth too, just like the stories of the gods are. Which isn’t taking anything away from science of the gods. It just shows how our psyche operates. Numbers for example, (which are heavily used in math and science) are archetypes, that have a quantitative (thinking function) aspect, as well as qualitative (feeling function) aspect. Marie Louise Von Franz has a good book on this called “Number and Time.”
In conclusion, this secular notion in the living science myth could fit the projection of our time, but I’m afraid that, although number and mathematics carry a kind of unconscious numinosity, it would only add to the inflation rather than dissolve it. What I believe would could contribute to the dissolution is the acknowledgement of the central position of chance and irrationality as “equally” valid to reason/rationality and repetition. This dissolution wouldn’t eradicate the useful advances of science, but in fact provide a reasonable and true rationality balanced viewpoint.
Resources:
Franz, M. V. (1995). Creation myths. Boston, MA: Shambhala.
Franz, M. V., & Dykes, A. (1998). Number and time reflections leading toward a unification of depth psychology and physics. Evanston (Illinois): Northwestern University Press.
Hawking, S. (n.d.). Questioning the universe. Retrieved March 17, 2018, from https://www.ted.com/talks/
Joe Rogan’s Mind is Blown by Quantum Physicist! (2017, August 24). Retrieved March 17, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Joe Rogan VS Milo Yiannopoulos: Atheism debate. (2017, August 04). Retrieved March 17, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Jung, C. G., Read, H., & Hull, R. F. (2014). Alchemical studies. London: Routledge.
Jung on Alchemy (5): Hermes, the Arcane Interpreter of All. (2016, April 03). Retrieved March 17, 2018, from https://symbolreader.net/2015/
Jung, C. G. (1964). Psychological types or, The psychology of individuation. London: Pantheon Books.
R. (2018, February 15). Russell Brand & Jordan Peterson – Kindness VS Power | Under The Skin #46. Retrieved March 17, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Van Eenwyk, J. (n.d.). Preparing to Meet the Gods: The Soul Turned Inward. Lecture presented at Facing the Gods: Archetypal Patterns of Existence in CG Jung Institute of Chicago, Chicago. Audio Course.
Leave a Reply